Karnataka

Bidar

CC/96/2016

Mallikarjun s/o Shivlingappa Nagshetty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cell World Agencies Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

Deshpande P.M.

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                      C.C.No.  96/2016

 

                                                                                      Date of filing : 08/11/2016

 

                                                                                 Date of disposal : 30/06/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                    President.

    

                                      (2) Shri. Shankrappa,(Halipurgi)

                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                     Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT:          Mallikarjun, S/o Shivlingappa Nagshetty,

                                         Age: Major, Occ: Private work,

                                      R/o Mugnoor, Tq.Humnabad, Dist.Bidar.

                                                                                    

 

 

                                     (By Shri. Deshpande. P.M., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             1.  Cell World Agencies,

                                              Shop No.2, Geeta Complex,

                                              Mahaveer Circle, Zaheerabad road,

                                           Bidar-585401.  

 

 

                                         2. Micro Max, Srinivas Electronics,

                                             10-7-16 D1 NV Complex,

         Gulbarga-585 103.

 

 

                       

                                        (O.P.No.1&2- Exparte)

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

        The complainant is before  us U/s. 12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, filed against the O.P. for deficiency of service.    The gist of the case is as here under:

             2.                    The complainant is a native of village Mugnoor of Humnabad Taluka of Bidar district.   Being in need of the mobile hand set, he had purchased  a new Micromax mobile hand set from the O.P.no.1 on 30/12/2013, for Rs. 5,400/- and obtained receipt with warranty card from the O.P.No.1.   The complainant avers that,  after using the said mobile hand set, he found it non-functional coupled  and many defects in the mobile handset.  Thereafter the complainant approached the mobile for repair to the O.P.No.2 which was the service provider of the mobile hand set.  The O.P.no.2 after receiving the mobile had told the complainant that, the mobile handset could not rectified.  Despite  of several requests by the complainant, the O.P.no.2 has not rectified the defects of the said hand set. Even after  issuing the legal notice on the O.P.no.2, the O.P.No.2  neither had replied  nor got repaired the same.  Due to defective mobile hand set the complainant could not establish his routine communications and responses and he was compelled to purchase another mobile by paying extra amount and the complainant had sustained  pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-and suffered mental agonies.   Hence, the complainant  has filed this complaint requesting this Forum that the O.P. be directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation and any other relief be granted.

  3.          On receipt of the Court’s notice the O.Ps.   did not appear  before this Forum and had been placed exparte.  The complainant has filed   evidence affidavit and written arguments reiterating his contentions and documents relied upon are described at the end of the order.

4.               In the absence of any protests or objections from the O.P in spite of being served with the Court notice, thus showing utter disregard to a Court of adjudication, primafacie, we would have accepted the contentions of the complainant as a whole in it’s face value.  But, the onerous responsibility casted upon us demands that, we have to act basing on the broader principle of “Actus Curiae naminem gravabit”. The act of the Court must prejudice none.

 

5.       Therefore we fix only two points for consideration as follows:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

 

 

2. What order ?

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

                1.  In the affirmative.

                2. As per final orders due to the following

 

:: REASONS::

7. Point no.1   In the face of the apparent apathy of the opponents opting not to participate in the proceedings, the uncontroverted fact remains, the complainant/ consumer with a motto of regular communications  had purchased the captioned mobile set from the OP No.1 who was the dealer of M/s Micromax against valuable considerations vide Ex.P1 date: 30/12/2013.  Attempting to put the same to use he found it non functional, still saddled with many more defects.  The article was covered under warranty vide Ex.P2.  After attempting several times to get the set rectified and not getting the optimum result, on 16/12/2014, within the period of warranty, he had placed the set at the disposal of the opponent No.2, the authorised service centre of the manufacturer and trader i.e., O.P.No.1 vide Ex.P3.  The defects claimed by the complainant/ consumer is corroborated by the service centre O.P.No.2 in the Ex.P3 itself.  The O.P.No.2 in the normal business procedure, should have taken up the matter with OP No.1, the seller of the object and ultimately with the manufacturer in China.  Alas, he but sat lame duck on the problems without taking any pragmatic step.

8.         Next, the O.P.No.1(Trader) was in formed about the defects in the mobile set vide legal notices at Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 with no response.

9.         The ostrich like response of both opponents prove their mens-rea to the fullest extent and we convincingly hold that, a garanguntan deficiency of service can be attributed to both opponents, whereby, we hold the point No.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

                  The complaint is allowed in part.

1. Notwithstanding the tall claim of the complainant seeking compensation for alleged pecuniary loss to the extent of Rs.75000/- which is not substantiated by any cogent evidence, we hold that, the O.P.No.1 (trader) is bound to refund a sum of Rs.5400/- being the cost of the mobile set (Ex.P1) to the complainant, along with interest @ 12% P.a., calculated from the date of purchase of the mobile set i.e., 30.12.2013, till the date of realisation.
2. Both the opponents, having resorted to unethical trade practices are liable to compensate the complainant/Consumer jointly and severally @ Rs.5,000/- towards the mental agonies and inconveniences under gone by the later, together with litigation expenses @ Rs.3,000/-.
3. Four week time is granted to comply this order.

A copy of this order be for warded to the Asst. Director,  information and publicity, Government of Karnataka, near Railway Station Bidar for wide publication in print and electronic media for consumer awareness.

 

   (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th day of June-2017).

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad                 

        Member                                                                  President

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1-Sale receipt of the mobile set date: 30/12/2013(original)
2. Ex.P.2- Warranty card.
3. Ex.P.3- Receipt of O.P.No.2 in original.
4. Ex.P.4- Office copy of legal notice date: 02/01/2015.
5. Ex.P.5- Office copy of legal notice date: 02/09/2016.

 

Documents filed by the Opponent/s

 

-Nil-

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                          Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                 

        Member                                                                     President.