For Complainant         :           Sri Sachidananda Mishra, Advocate.

For Op No.1& 2           :           None

For OP No.3                 :           Sri Sisir Kumar Mishra, Advocate

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Canvas 2.2 A114 (Black) X00081XHLL, IMEI-911343504515422 Sl. No. Lithiumlon handset cell phone for Rs.8195/- vide Invoice No.KA-BLRS-132564071-23566 dt.09.07.2014 from OP.1 with one year warranty and after 4 months of its use certain problems were noticed in the handset for which the complainant approached OP.2-ASC on 03.12.2014 who received the set and Rs.350/- towards repair charges.  It is submitted that when the complainant approached the OP.2 after some days, he could learn that some more repairs to the handset are required and hence the OP.2 prepared job sheet on 05.01.2015 and advised the complainant to come after 7 days.  It is further submitted that the complainant again went to OP.2 to receive his repaired handset but on the spot he found that the problems stand as it is and the complainant requested the OP to replace the set with a new one but the OP expressed his inability and told that the handset is to be sent to Bhubaneswar for more repairs.  Due to non-functioning of the handset the complainant suffers mental agony.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the set with a new one and to pay Rs.35, 000/- towards compensation and cost.  The complainant had earlier filed this case before the DCDRF, Sambalpur and vides order dt.12.01.2016 the Hon’ble Forum while dismissing the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction had directed the complainant to file the case in the proper Forum having jurisdiction.  Hence the complainant has filed this case before this Forum.

2.                     The Ops 1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 though entered his appearance through its A/R also neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that it has no knowledge regarding purchase of alleged handset by the complainant and the Ops 1 & 2 have not intimated about the sale of alleged handset to the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant has not produced the defective set before the Forum and the job sheet produced by the complainant does not show any manufacturing defect in the handset.  It is also contended that there is no evidence or technical report from an expert to show that the handset is a defective one and the complainant is required to strict proof of the fact with cogent evidence.  Thus denying any deficiency in service or defect in goods on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  In this case purchase of Micromax handset IMEI No.911343504515422 from OP.1 for Rs.8195/- on 09.07.2014 which is a product of OP No.3 is supported by invoice issued by OP.1 and hence the purchase is duly proved.  Thus the OP No.3 cannot deny the sale of his product of handset to the complainant through its selling agent-OP.1.  The complainant stated that he approached the ASC-OP.2 on 03.12.2014 for problems noticed in the handset and the OP.2 received the handset for “ON-OFF KEY, volume problems” and also received Rs.350/- towards repair charges from the complainant.  The ASC has also granted money receipt dt.03.12.2014 to that effect.  From the above facts, it is very much clear that the handset became defective during the warranty period.

4.                     Further when the complainant went to receive the handset with repair from the OP.2, he could learn that the handset needs some more repairs and the OP.2 issued Job Sheet dt.05.01.2015 with the problem “4101 Power does not switch on” and advised the complainant to come after 7 days.  When the complainant approached OP.2 after 7 days, he found that the problems stand as it is.  Then the complainant approached the OP to replace the set with a new one but the OP expressed their inability.  The ASC advised the complainant to send the set to Bhubaneswar for further repairs by the Company Engineers.

5.                     The OP.3 in his counter stated that there is no documentary evidence or any technical report from an expert to show that the handset is a defective one.  It is seen from the record that the handset was purchased on 09.07.2014 and due to defects noticed, the complainant had filed this case before the DCDREF, Sambalpur and subsequently that case was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction on 12.01.2016 with direction to the complainant to agitate his case before the proper Forum having jurisdiction.  The complainant has filed this case before this Forum on 12.04.2016.  It is also seen that during the warranty period, the handset became defective and hence the complainant has approached the ASC of the Company on 03.12.2014 and also has paid Rs.350/- towards repair charges to OP.2.  Further the ASC has issued job sheet dt.05.01.2015 showing some major defect in the handset.  As the problems could not be rectified, the OP.2 advised the complainant to send the handset for further repair by the Company Engineer at Bhubaneswar which shows that the hand set has got major problems for which the ASC could not be able to bring the set in to order.  In our opinion, the report of ASC of the Company is a technical report which is to be accepted by OP.3.

6.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it can be concluded that the handset purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect for which in spite of repeated repairs, it could not be brought into working condition and hence the complainant is to get back the cost of the handset with interest from the OP No.3.  For the defective handset and for such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost in his favour will meet the ends of justice. 

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.8195/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from, the date of defect noticed (03.12.2014) till payment in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)