Date of Filing: 10.01.2014 Date of Final Order: 28.11.2014.
The case of the complainant Sri. Samir De is that, the complainant on 04-03-2012 purchased a Micromax X-660 Model Mobile Set with battery & Charger )IMEI No.911151950040120, 911151950040138 & Battery No.X-660 12110007550) from Choice Korner against Rs.3,840/-, with assurance of proper service from Service Centre of Micromax Mobile i.e. ‘M/s. Mahamaya Enterprise’, Cooch Behar (O.P No.1). After three months (on 07-06-2012) of purchase the said set the problem cropped up as to the hand set automatically dead during ON mode. Facing the said problem the Complainant went to the mobile shop i.e. Choice Korner and they informed to go to its Service Centre, “Mahamaya Enterprise” i.e. O.P. No.1 for sort out the problem of the Hand Set. Thereafter the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and they advice the Complainant to submit the mobile set. As per advice of the O.P. No.1 the Complainant handed over the set to the O.P No.1 and they issued a Job Card being No.932. After ten days the complainant received the said set in good condition and he knew that it happen for software problem. On 04-07-2012 the complainant again went to the O.P. No.1 for facing same problem in his mobile set, which Job Card No.1108 and after five days the complainant received his set but on 10-07-2012 the complainant again went to the O.P. No.1 and they informed that now the said set will be send to the Head Office then the complainant handed over his set to them which Job Card No.1144. After three months the complainant get his mobile set with changing the IMEI number & Battery number.
The complainant submit a application with request to extending the warranty period of his mobile set causes depositing his set to the service centre for long time with assurance of they will take necessary action but in vain. The complainant email to the Micromax Company for facing again same problem and negligent of the service centre but all in vain. The Complaint three times placed the set before the servicing centre but the problem in the set did not cure. He faced hindrance, suffering resulting to irreparable loss, harassment, acute mental pain, agony, pecuniary loss & unnecessary harassment due to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. Hence, he filed the instant case before this Forum for redress of the dispute with I.P.O. of Rs.100/- and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to (1) Rs.3,840/- as the price of the Mobile phone, (2) Pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-for mental pain, agony, unnecessary harassment, deficiency in service & unfair trade practice, (3) Rs.500/- towards litigation cost.
The O.P. No.1 Mahamaya Enterprise has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia the case is not maintainable and bad for defect of parties.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the complainant for the first time brought the hand set on 08-06-2012 to the O.Ps service centre complaining the problems such as auto off problems which may happened due to miss handling/virus attack or rash handling of the said hand set as the said hand set has multiple software. Thereafter the O.P asked the complainant that for thorough check up the said hand set should be kept at their Centre for few days and after repairing the said hand set they returned the same to the complainant with his full satisfaction and also intimated the complainant that he should use the said hand set properly and carefully as the said hand set has a multiple software may attack virus during net surfing and most of the people do not know how to use/handle the said multiple software and also advised to the complainant to follow the user guide book of the said hand set to avoid such types of problems.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that the complainant again came to the O.Ps service centre on 08-06-2012, 04-07-2012 and 10-07-2012 complaining same problems and this time too O.P. No.1 solved/repaired the problem and returned the same to the complainant.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that every time when the complainant came to the service centre of the O.P. No.1complaining same problems and they repaired the same with utmost care and attentively and lastly when the complainant again came to the O.Ps service centre on 07-09-2012 after thorough check up they sent the said hand set to the manufacturing company to sort out such repeated problems and after repairing the same the said hand set by the concerned manufacturing company (Micromax Company) returned the said hand set to the O.P. No.1 and thereafter the O.P. No.1 made contact with the complainant and the complainant being satisfied took the said hand set. That since then the complainant never come/approach to the O.Ps concern.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that surprisingly after a long lapse of time (after about one year) a Notice from the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business, Cooch Behar came to the O.P. No.1 where they appeared and presented their submission that after repairing the said hand set from the company (Micromax Manufacturing Company) the O.P. No.1 hand over the same to the complainant with his full satisfaction. That since then the complainant never come/approach to the O.Ps concern regarding any complaint.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.1 that as the warranty period of 1 year of the said hand set has ended up which is also known to the complainant and being ill advised the complainant brought this complaint before the Ld. Forum.
It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that the O.P. No.1 value their customer hence whatever services the customer requires they tired their level best to provide them accordingly. So deficiency in service as well as mental pain and agony and harassment as alleged does not arise at all. Allegation against the O.Ps concern having no basis at all as alleged in the complaint petition of the complainant.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
The O.P. No.2, M.D., Micromax House, Gurgaon is the manufacturer of the set in question. The complainant has made sincere afford to serve notice upon the O.P. No.2 but in vain. Lastly name of the O.P. No.2 has been expunged at the instance of the complainant.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile set at a price of Rs.3,840/-. The O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of Micromax mobile and the O.P. No.2, the M.D., Micromax House is manufacturer of the mobile set in question.
So, relation between the complainant and the O.P. No.1 & 2 has been established.
Point No.2.
O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise has service centre at Cooch Behar town.
Valuation of the case is Rs.9,340/- which is less than Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
In this complaint and evidence the complainant stated that on 04-03-2012 purchased a Micromax X-660 Model Mobile Set with battery & Charger )IMEI No.911151950040120, 911151950040138 & Battery No.X-660 12110007550) from Choice Korner against Rs.3,840/-, with assurance of proper service from Service Centre of Micromax Mobile i.e. ‘M/s. Mahamaya Enterprise’, Cooch Behar (O.P No.1). Tax Invoice dated 04-03-2012 issued by Choice Corner reveals that the complainant, Samir De purchased said Micromax mobile set at a price of Rs.3,840/-.
The O.P. No.1 also has not denied the fact that the complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile set manufactured by Micromax company.
It is the case of the complainant that since purchase some problems cropped up in the said mobile set and he had to bring the said set to the O.P. No.1, service centre on 08-06-2012, 04-07-2012 and after service the said set had been returned back to him.
Lastly on 10-07-2012 the said set had been received by the O.P. No.1 for sending the same to the Head Office.
Job Card No.932 dated 08-06-2012, Job Card No.1108 dated 04-07-2012 reveals that the said set was brought to the O.P. No.1, service centre and they repaired the same.
Receipt dated 10-07-2012 reveals that the said set was received by the O.P. No.1 for sending the same to the Head Office.
It is the case of the complainant that even after receiving the set from the Head Office after 3 months the problems of the said set did not cure.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that every time when the complainant came to the service centre of the O.P. No.1complaining same problems and they repaired the same with utmost care and attentively and lastly when the complainant again came to the O.Ps service centre on 07-09-2012 after thorough check up they sent the said hand set to the manufacturing company to sort out such repeated problems and after repairing the same the said hand set by the concerned manufacturing company (Micromax Company) returned the said hand set to the O.P. No.1 and thereafter the O.P. No.1 made contact with the complainant and the complainant being satisfied took the said hand set. That since then the complainant never come/approach to the O.Ps concern.
On perusal of the documents i.e. Job Card dated 08-06-2012 & 04-07-2012 and receipt dated 10-07-2012 and other materials on record we find that the O.P. No.1, service centre had done their duty by repairing the set and sending the same to the Head Office for thorough repair and handed over the same to the complainant after receiving the same from the Head Office.
We further find that though the complainant has filed the case against the O.P. No.1, service centre for deficiency in service but practically in four corner of the complaint and evidence of the complainant there is no such specific allegation that the O.P. No.1, service centre did not perform their duty/obligation.
It appears from the Job Cards and other documents and evidence of the complainant that trouble cropped up in the mobile set in question from beginning and the complainant has to bring the set to the service centre on 08-06-2012 & 04-07-2012 and lastly on 10-07-2012 the said set was sent to the Head Office for repair. But even after that the defect of the set did not cure.
So, it is clear from the above discussed evidence that there was some manufacturing defect in the said set which was not cured even after several attempt.
It appears from the copy of e-mail dated 10-09-2013 that by sending e-mail the matter was brought to the notice of the O.P. No.2, Micromax Company but in vain.
So, it is clear from our above made discussion that manufacturer of the set was responsible for inherent defect of the mobile set and liable for deficiency in service.
But it is very unfortunate that though there was manufacturing defect of the set in question and manufacturer of the said set i.e. O.P. No.2, Micromax Company has been made party to the case but lastly name of the O.P. No.2 has been expunged at the instance of the complainant due to non-service of notice upon O.P. No.2 inspite of sincere afford.
In view of the facts of circumstances of the case and materials on record we constrained to hold that the complainant cannot get any remedy in this case as O.P. No.2, Micromax Company is not a party to this case and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
Accordingly, the case fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the DF Case No.2/2014 of the Complainant stands dismissed on contest without any costs.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
