Order-13.

Date-17/04/2015.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP is running a business of Mobile Phone and complainant bought a mobile phone brand Micromax Model a-24, IMEI-1, 911328157149777, IMEI-2, 911328157149785 vide invoice no.678/14-15 dated 19-07-2014 but the date of Invoice has been wrongly mentioned as 01-04-2014 which is incorrect.

          Complainant found that the aforesaid mobile phone was not working from the very day of purchased, so, complainant approached on 18-07-2014 to replace the defective Mobile OP did not agree to replace the mobile set and OP also misbehaved with the complainant using filthy languages.  Complainant drew attention to the manufacturing and import date of above mobile phone as June, 2014, manufacturing date as mentioned in Mobile Phone June, 2014 and date mentioned in the purchased Invoice as 01-04-2014 and due to this wrong statement service centre OP2 does not agree to accept for repairing the mobile phone.

          Complainant drew the matter under attention to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Kolkata Central for redressal the issue and Assistant Director made his best efforts to solve the dispute but no result, then he advised the complainant to approach before Forum for redressal.  So, complainant compelled to file this case for negligence and deficiency in service and for causing mental pain and agony to the complainant.

          On the other hand, OP submitted that he is the dealer of the Micromax including other mobile phones and M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd. is the importer of the Micromax Mobile Phones, having its office at Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Narayana Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110 028 and OP   1 is selling agent of M/s. Kripa International(P) Ltd. for Micromax Mobile Phones having its office at 2, Lalbazar Street, Kolkata – 700 001.  OP1 always cooperate with the customers and redress their grievance if any due to any misunderstanding of the customer.  OP1 is the only dealer of various branded company’s product.  It is admitted that on 19-07-2014 Dilip Kumar Ghosh, the complainant came to the shop of the OP1 and wanted to see Micromax mobile set, accordingly company’s salesman showed various available model of Micromax as well as other company’s model too and after seeing 4-5 models choose Micromx model A-24, dual GSM having Sim No.1-911328157149777 and Sim No.2-911328157149785 and cost of the said model A-24 was Rs.2,445-00 + VAT  at the rate14.5 percent and before delivery of the said mobile phone company’s salesman demonstrated the function of the aid mobile phone model A-24 and after inspection and verifying the operation of the said dual GSM mobile phone and satisfied with the function of the said mobile complainant agreed to purchase the Micromax that model and ultimately purchased the amd and company salesman delivered the said Micromax model in original condition and in original packet on 19-07-2014 under company’s invoice No.678/14-15 for Rs.2,800/- and complainant accepted it without any objection.

          It is specifically mentioned that due to mal-functioning of the computer print of invoice no.678/14-15 date printed as 01-04-2014 in place of 19-07-2014 which is a clerical mistake.  OP1 requested the complainant to return the said bill dated 01-04-2014 and take fresh invoice bill but the complainant did not agree.  OP1 requested the complainant to handover the said mobile, so that they could sent the set to the distributor for investigation of defects if any, as alleged by the complainant but complainant did not agree.  On the contrary complainant pressurized to change the said phone by delivering Samsung brand mobile phone in place of the said Micromax model A-24.

          OP1 has specifically mentioned that he is still now ready to replace or repair the Micromax Mobile purchased by the complainant if complainant returns and handover for investigation and checking all the defects as alleged by the complainant although complainant never states any specific defect in the complaint or verbally what type of defects in the said mobile phone was found by the complainant or what type of problem complainant is facing by using this mobile.

          In fact, there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP and OP is ready to replace the said micromax mobile phone and to change the said receipt and do the needful given proper service to the complainant but complainant is not willing to appear before the OP1 and practically appear before the Forum for redressal.  So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the entire materials on record including written version and further hearing argument we have gathered that OP1 has admitted in written statement that they are willing to repair or replace the micromax mobile phone purchased by the complainant and complainant should be requested to submit the receipt and they are willing to do the needful in this regard.  Considering that fact and particular defective invoice receipt and further considering the refusal to remove the defect of the said mobile phone by the OP2 for defective invoice practically complainant failed to enjoy the said mobile since his purchase but fact remains mobile is purchased by any person only for the purpose of his proper use and if he after purchase it is found that it is not fit for use in that case invariably the dealer is liable to replace the same when the said articles are sold by the dealer as foreign made article because OP has admitted that OP1 is the selling agent of M/s. Kripa International (P) Ltd. and M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd. is the importer of the Micromax Mobile Phones.  So, it is clear that it is the duty of the OP1 to repair or replace the said set when it is found that since inception of purchase complainant faced much trouble in respect of the said mobile.  In the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that the allegation of the complainant is correct and no doubt complainant is entitled to get such relief what he has prayed for and fact remains OP1 agrees to return the same by replace the said mobile including fresh receipt.  In the above situation we find that on demand of the OP the present complaint should be allowed.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP1 and same is dismissed against the OP2 without any cost.

          OP1 is hereby directed to handover a new handset after taking back the defective old handset of micromax model from the complainant and handover a defect free usable mobile to the complainant and if complainant is unwilling to accept such model being dissatisfied about the said mobile in that case OP1 shall have to refund the sum of Rs.2,800/- to the complainant as total amount of the set and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- for causing harassment and mental pain and agony and also for his suffering not to enjoy the said set even after purchase on 19-07-2014. 

          OP1 is directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order OP shall have to pay a punitive damages  at the rateRs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is not complied with the OP in that case OP shall be prosecuted u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.