This case is coming for final hearing on 27.02.2015 in the presence of Sri Anil Bhaskar Dokhe Complainant appear in person and opposite parties called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao, Honourable Member on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The present complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act against opposite parties 1 to 3 on 27.12.2013 and the complainant requested the Forum to direct the opposite parties;

1)      to refund the amount paid by the complainant for purchasing the mobile phone i.e., Rs.8,600/-

2)      to compensate for causing mental agony for an amount of Rs.30,000/-

3)      to award costs for litigation.

2.       The brief averments are as follows: The present complaint is filed by the complainant in person.  The complainant submits that he has purchased Micromax Funbook P560 tablet on 09.05.2013 from the 1^st opposite party which is manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is the serving centre of 3^rd opposite party.  After purchasing the tablet set it worked properly for 10 days and started giving problems from the 10^th day itself.  On 24.05.2013 the complainant gave the tablet for servicing and it was returned to the complainant after one month.  Again after using the repaired tablet, it worked only for two days and then started giving problems with regarding to “switch on and off”.  In the similar scenario the same process of repairing and giving tablet to the complainant continued for seven times, but till date the problem was not solved.  Finally, when the tablet was given for repair to the opposite party No.2 it was not solved and also as on today the Micromax Funbook tablet is in the servicing centre of 3^rd opposite party i.e., 2^nd opposite party.  As the complainant faced so many repairs with the Micromax Tablet purchased from 1^st opposite party and spend lot of money and valuable time for getting it repaired.  He finally filed the present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and sought for the relieves as sought for.

3.       Notices were served to the opposite parties 1 to 3.  On 03.02.2014 even after receiving notices, the opposite parties 1 & 2 called absent and were set exparte.  The notices sent to the 3^rd opposite party was returned and thereby the complainant gave paper publication in Hind Samachar Limited (Punjab Kesari Paper) which is circulated in Gurgaon District.  On 08.01.2005 the complainant filed the newspaper for giving paper publication and along with the bill for Rs.1680/- for publishing the notice in Punjab Kesari Paper.  Though the publication was given, opportunity was given to 3^rd opposite party and as there is no representation on the side of 3^rd opposite party, on 29.01.2015 the 3^rd opposite party was set exparte. 

4.       On perusing the pleadings of the complainant, the following issues were framed for consideration.

1)      Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2)      To what relief?

5.       The complainant submitted his evidence affidavit and on his behalf Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked.  The complainant filed his written arguments and also submitted his oral arguments. 

6.       Issue Nos.1 & 2:   The present complaint is filed by the complainant for refund of the amount of Rs.8,600/- paid to the 1^st opposite party for purchasing Micromax tablet which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party located at Gurgaon.  Ex.A1 is the invoice/cash bill for Rs.8600/- for purchasing P650 Micromax Funbook tablet from the 1^st opposite party.  The seven job sheets pertaining to the repairs done to the Micromax tablet were marked as Ex.A2.  The Four e-mail correspondences done by the complainant and the opposite parties were marked as Ex.A3. 

7.       Observing the seven job sheets and Ex.A2, the Job Sheet dated 24.05.2013 it seems the tablet status, date and symptom is No.4101 power does not switch on.  In job sheet dated 11.07.2013 the same problem in job sheet dated 24.05.2013 is represented.  In job sheet dated 26.08.2013 in the remarks column it was mentioned as some times signal drop and in symptom column it was mentioned as 4204 Cellular Access (GSM) No service.  The endorsement given by the 2^nd opposite party dated 02.09.2013 reveals that the problem with the tablet is “set hanging”.  The endorsement given by the 2^nd opposite party dated 12.09.2013 reveals that “camera is not working, mobile hanging, dead, MX player and adopt record not working”.  The job sheet dated 13.12.2013 given by the 2^nd opposite party reveals that in the remarks column “some times power does not on, mobile hanging”. In the symptom column it was mentioned as “4103 power switches off”.  Four e-mail correspondences done between the complainant and the opposite parties are related to the repair for the Micromax tablet purchased by the complainant and the opposite parties in their response gave assurance that the problem will be solved at the earliest.  The said four e-mails are done in between September to October, 2013.

8.       Observing the seven job sheets pertaining to 2^nd opposite party i.e., Ex.A2 along with four e-mail correspondences done between the complainant and opposite parties vide Ex.A3 it reveals that from 24.05.2013 onwards the Micromax tablet is giving problems to the complainant and with regarding to the opposite party No.2 has rectified the problems and finally when the tablet is not working properly it was given to the 2^nd opposite party for servicing and presently it was with the 2^nd opposite party only.  As seen from the pleadings and the documents Exhibits A1 to A3 furnished by the complainant it seems there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for not providing the new tablet piece or giving forward for refund of the amount i.e., Rs.8,600/-.

9.       In this matter, observing Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, Ex.A3 it seems after purchasing the tablet set, the complainant has not utilized the said set with proper condition and there are so many repairs and till the date of complaint also there are repairs in the tablet set.  Hence, we are of conclusive opinion that as it is within warrantee period, the tablet set can be replaced with new one.  But observing Ex.A1 terms and conditions that the “goods once sold cannot be exchanged and in the warrantee terms, as there is no replacement” we are of considered opinion that only equitable remedy available to the complainant is refund of amount i.e., Rs.8,600/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a. from 24.05.2013 (i.e., job sheet enclosed with Ex.A2).  Observing the bill for giving paper publication for Rs.1680/- for publication of notice in the Punjab Kesari Newspaper at Gurgoan and the repairs done to the Micromax Tablet set vide Ex.A2 along with the correspondences i.e., assurance given by the 3^rd opposite party we opined that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- as he has suffered with mental agony and harassment with the defective Micromax tablet set.  Observing the pleadings and the documents furnished by the complainant, it seems he might have incurred some amount in approaching the opposite parties 1 & 2 at Visakhapatnam and thereby we conclude the complainant is also entitled for costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

          Accordingly, issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered.

10.     In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  The Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund amount of Rs.8,600/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from 24.05.2013 till realization.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.  The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs for litigation.  The time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of March, 2015.

                Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

          President (FAC)                                                              Member

District Consumer Forum-I                                                                           Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

NIL

                 Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

          President (FAC)                                                              Member

District Consumer Forum-I                                                                           Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//