D.O.F:14/01/2022
D.O.O:29/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.9/2022
Dated this, the 29th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Radhakrishna, 36/22
Nava Chetana Nilaya,
Pannirkad House,
Pannirkad, Maipady,
Maipady, Kasaragod,
Post Maipady, Kasaragod – 671124.
(Adv: T.V. Sathyendran) : Complainant
And
- Bhagwati Products Ltd.,
SP1-1, Industrial Area Karoli,
Tapukar Extension, Bhiwadi,
Rajasthan - 301707.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
21/14A, PhaseII,
Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi - 110028.
- Niha Marketing,
Authorised Service Provider,
KMC III/1315/32/2152, 2153
First Floor, Thekkil Complex,
Nayaks Road, Kasaragod Post,
Kasaragod - 671121.
(Adv: Rajesh K.) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant is an electrician by profession who purchased a Micromax IN Note 1 (White 64 GB) Lite mobile through online by exchanging his mobile Honour 8 Lite and after deducting the exchange price complainant paid of Rs. 9,699/-with a freight charge of Rs. 100/- was also paid. The opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the mobile phone and the opposite party No.2 is marketing the product and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service center of the Micromax mobile phone. The complainant ordered the phone on 30/05/2021 and he received the same on 31/05/2021. The mobile had one year warranty. After few months, the touch screen of the said mobile phone is not working properly and battery charge is not in proper manner. Hence the complainant handed over the mobile to authorized service provider, opposite party No.3 on 12/11/2021, and a job sheet is issued to that effect. At the time of entrusting the phone for repair, opposite party No.3 informed that he will intimate the completion of work to the complainant, but opposite party No.3 not made any intimation till today. The complainant used to visit the opposite party No.3 twice in a week for his mobile, but it was in vain. When the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for his mobile phone, the attitude of the opposite party No.3 and his staff are inhuman, insulting and he threatened that they are not ready to repair his mobile phone. So the complainant was constrained to purchase a mobile phone for his personal use without which he cannot continue as an electrician. Due to the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party No.3, the complainant undergone loss and agony. The prayer of the complainant is to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with refund of the price of the mobile phone and cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party No.3 appeared and filed version. According to him, he is an unnecessary party to this complaint. There is no cause of action against opposite party No.3. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party. The complainant approached him on 12/11/2021 with a complaint of display and battery. Since it was within the warranty period, the complainant was intimated on the same day to opposite party No.2 and placed order for new display and battery. The opposite party No.2 took time to send the same to opposite party No.3. Whenever the complainant approached opposite party No.3, the fact was informed to him. The opposite party No.3 is helpless to cure the defects since unless the new display and battery are send by opposite party No.2 in time. Ordered articles reached 10 to 15 days prior to the receipt of summons to opposite party No.3 and the same was informed to the complainant. But he has not turned up. The opposite party No.3 is even now ready and willing to correct the Micromax phone of the complainant. Now, the opposite party No.3 is no more an authorized service provider of opposite party No.1&2. They have blocked communication between them and opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 denied the suggestion that the complainant used to visit the opposite party No.3 twice in a week for his mobile phone and when the complainant asked for his mobile phone, the attitude of the opposite party No.3 and his staff are inhuman, insulting etc. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the document produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A2. The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in curing the defects of the complainant’s phone?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, issue No. 1 to 3 can be discussed together. Here the complainant purchased a Micromax mobile phone through online by exchanging his mobile Honour 8 Light mobile. After deducting the exchange price, he paid Rs.9,699/- for the new mobile. He received the phone on 31/05/2021, the copy of the invoice is marked as Ext.A1. After five months, the touch screen of the mobile is not working properly and battery charging is also not in a proper manner. The complainant handed over the mobile to authorized service center (Opposite party No.3) on 12/11/2021 and opposite party issued a job sheet which is marked as Ext.A2. The opposite party No.3 informed the complainant that on completion of repair, he will intimate the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 twice in a week, the attitude of opposite party No.3 and his staff was insulting and inhuman. But so far the phone is not repaired and handed over to the complainant. The complainant is an electrician. mobile phone is highly essential for him. So he was constrained to purchase a new phone due to the negligence on the part of opposite parties. The complainant deposed before the commission that he has entrusted the phone for repair during the warranty period itself. The display and battery has to be get from the company. The opposite party No.3 informed that both these articles are not received so far. Job sheet is issued on 12/11/2021, 2 years back. When the complainant approached opposite party No.3 to know whether the defect is earned, he was insulted by the staff of opposite party No.3. The act of opposite party No.3 accused mental agony to the complainant. Even after 2 years, the phone is not yet repaired and handed over to the complainant, proves the lethargic attitude of opposite parties. All opposite parties are liable to compensate the mental sufferings and loss undergone by the complainant. Even after filing this complaint also, he approached opposite party No.3. But then also, the articles are not received from the company. All opposite parties are liable to compensate the mental sufferings and loss undergone by the complainant.
we carefully perused the affidavit and documents filed by the complainant and written version filed by the opposite party No.3. Due to the delay in repairing the phone by opposite party No.3 and delay in sending the articles by opposite party No.2, the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony. As an electrician, mobile phone is very essential to the complainant. The lethargic attitude of opposite parties caused huge loss and sufferings to the complainant. The prayer of the complainant is to refund the price of the phone with compensation and cost. He is seeking a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which is without any basis. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the commission holds that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to cure the defects of the phone with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. All opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Copy of the Tax invoice
A2 – Job sheet
Witness crsoss-examined
PW1 – Radhakrishna M.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
