Orissa

Koraput

01/2014

SRI SASIBHUSAN PADHY - Complainant(s)

Versus

(1) Suvarna Mobile,(2) M/s. L.N.S Mobile Care, (3) The Manager Micromax Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

None

19 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
KORAPUT AT JEYPORE,ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. 01/2014
 
1. SRI SASIBHUSAN PADHY
At/Post- Nehuru Nagar.
Koraput
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. (1) Suvarna Mobile,(2) M/s. L.N.S Mobile Care, (3) The Manager Micromax Mobile
(1)Main Road, Jeypore, Dist- Koraput.(2) , R.K. Tower, M.G. Road, At/Post-Jeypore Dist- Koraput.(3) House No. 697, Phase-(V) Udyagvihar, Gurgoan, Haryana.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MANAS RANJAN BISOI PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Absent
 
For the Opp. Party:
Absent
 
Dated : 19 Jun 2014
Final Order / Judgement
  1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Mobile Handset Model-1 MICROMAX X 295, IMEI No. 911316751532522 from OP No. 1 vide Bill No. R- 512 dt. 09.08.2013 for Rs. 1800/- but after 3 months, the Key pad did not work for which as per advice of OP.1, the complainant produced the handset with Op.2, Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of the Manufacturer  (OP.3) but the OP.2  opined that the handset is water logged and as such it does not cover under warranty. The complainant submitted that the handset is not water logged as he is using the same personally with care but the OP.2 arbitrarily says that the handset is water logged. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops for refund of a defect free handset with due compensation.
  2.             The Op.1 filed counter admitting the sale of subject handset to the complainant and contended that the complainant approached him with the defective set and he advised him to approach ASC. It is further contended that, if there is any defect in the handset, then the OP.3 being the manufacturer is liable. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
  3.             The Ops 2&3 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. As such they preceded expert on 18.02.2014. Heard from the complainant and perused the materials available on record.
  4.             In this case, the handset sold by OP.1 and non-functioning of key pad is all admitted facts. The complainant stated that on approach to OP.2, it opined that the handset is water logged and as such repair can be done on cost paid basis. It is seen that the complainant had produced the handset before OP.2 on 19.12.2013 whereas the same was purchased on 09.08.2013. That means the set suffered defect within 3 months, of its purchase. In the job sheet Dt. 19.12.2013, the OP.2 mentioned that the keypad is fault. If the handset was water logged, the entire system could have been damaged and as such it is not understood as to how only 2 bottoms of the key pad only got damaged. Hence it can be easily concluded that the reason for damage of buttons is only due to defect in handset, particularly due to bad work mention but not due to water logging.
  5.             From the above discussions it can be easily concluded that the handset suffered defects during normal use and it was the duty of OP.2 to get the set repaired under warranty but he did not do so. This inaction of OP 2 amounts to deficiency in service for which the OP3 is liable. As such it would be appropriate to direct the OP.3 to refund the cost of the set with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.08.2013 and to pay Rs. 700/- towards compensation and cost for mental agony and cost of litigation.
  6.             Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in party and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.1800/- with interest  @ 12% p.a. from 09.08.2013 and to pay Rs. 700/- towards compensation and costs in lieu of defective handset within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. 
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MANAS RANJAN BISOI]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.