Date of filing : 07-10-2013
Date of order : 26-02-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.231/2013
Dated this, the 26th day of February 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Abdul Salam Parveez, : Complainant
S/o.Abdul Gafoor Poyakkara,
Ubaid Road, Theruvath, Kasaragod.
(In Person)
1. Authorized Signatory, : Opposite parties
Micro Max Informatics Ltd, 21/14,
Phase IInd Naraima Industrial Area, Delhi. 110028.
2. The Proprietor, Mobile villa, Shop No.105,
Gulf Bazar, New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.
3. Vincent, ‘Bharathee Digital Care’,Safar Travels,
New Bus Stand, Kasaragod. 671121
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT
Complainant Mr. Abdul Salam filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Micromax Mobile Phone on 14-02-2013 worth Rs.7000/- from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and very next day of its purchase the complainant found defects in the mobile and while purchasing the mobile the 2nd opposite party made believe that the mobile phone has got high memory support and on believing the words of 2nd opposite party the complainant purchased the mobile but the phone has no memory support and for repairing the phone the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party, the service centre of 1st opposite party and the complainant given the phone for repair on 19-06-2013 and the same is returned back to the complainant by the 3rd opposite party stating that it was duly repaired and again the same defect noticed and on 25-06-2013 he again given it for repair then the memory card is changed then also the same defect continued and the 3rd opposite party send the mobile to Kannur for repair but the defect is not cured then the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for replacing the mobile set and the 2nd opposite party refused to replace the hand set. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 duly served notice issued from this Forum, they have not turned up name of all opposite parties called absent, set exparte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4 marked.
Heard the complainant and documents perused. On going through the entire facts on records we are of the opinion that it is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. While purchasing the mobile set the 2nd opposite party made believe the complainant that the mobile phone has got high memory support. But after purchasing the same he came to know that there is no such quality as stated by the 2nd opposite party. Here the opposite parties failed to provide after sale service to the customers. Moreover, they are even not ready to appear before this Forum. No contra evidence is adduced. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed by him.
Therefore the complaint is allowed, the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the mobile phone Micromax-A/72 to the complainant and opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant. Time for compliance of the order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 14-06-2013 Cash Bill
A2. Photocopy of Service Bill dt. 19-06-2013
A3. Service Bill.dt.26-06-2013
A4. Customer details cum warranty card
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
