Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/65/2015

Debashes Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Costumer care supporter micromax - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.M. Dash

22 Jun 2022

ORDER

Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, MEMBER:     

1. The fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile of model A-114 having IMEI No. 911343504856727 from the O.P. No.2 on dated 22.07.2014 bearing cash memo No. 756. After purchasing the said mobile, the Complainant found the said cell phone to be defective as sometimes the power of the mobile does not switch on. The Complainant immediately informed the matter to the O.P. No.2 and requested him to replaced the said mobile with new one but the O.P. No.2 expressed his inability and advise him to contact the authorised service centre of Micromax Co. Ltd at Sambalpur i.e. the O.P. No.3.

Thereafter the Complainant deposited the said mobile before the O.P. No.3 for servicing and after few days the O.P. No.3 returned the mobile to the Complainant but the Complainant found that the keypad of the said mobile was not working properly. He deposited the said mobile on dtd. 22.05.2015 again and after few days the O.P. No.3 return the mobile to the Complainant but this time after few days the same problem arised and having no way the petitioner again deposited the said mobile at O.P. N.3 but the defect not persist by the O.P. No.3 till the date filing of this case by the Complainant. The Complainant having no way served legal registered notice to the O.Ps on 26.09.2015 but they did not response.

2. The O.P.s are not appeared and set ex-parte. The Complainant also absent during the process of hearing. Hence the case is disposal of on merit.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P.s?
2. Is there any deficiency in the part of the O.Ps?
3. Is the Complainant entitle to get any relief?

ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P.s?

                 The Complainant purchased One Micromax Mobile of model A-114 having IMEI No. 911343504856727 from the O.P. No.2 who is the retailer under O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 is the authorized service dealer of the said company and the complainant deposited the same mobile to the O.P. No.3 for repairing. So the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P.s.

 

ISSUE NO.2: Is there any deficiency in the part of the O.Ps?

          The defect was found within guarantee period. There was manufacturing defect in the said mobile. The Complainant send the registered post notice to the O.Ps but they did not listened. So the O.P. No.1 who is the manufacturer is completely liable for the deficiency of service. The Complainant deposited the said mobile at O.P. No.3 who is the authorised dealer of the O.P. No.1. He cannot rectify the defect and did not take any step regarding the removal of defect further. So he is also liable for deficiency in service.

          The O.P. No.2 is the retailer of the mobile company. He has no scope to replace or removal of defect because the mobile had manufacturing defect. So there is no chance of deficiency in the part of O.P. No.2.

ISSUE NO.3: Is the Complainant entitle to get any relief?

          As the problem was found within the guarantee period and the defect was point out and taken step in time by the Complaint before O.Ps, the Complainant is fully entitle to get all reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition.

          So order is pronounced accordingly.

ORDER

          The complaint petition is allowed on merit. The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 both are liable for compensation for the defect found in the mobile purchased by the Complainant. Both the O.Ps have not take any step to rectify the defect so the O.P. NO.1 and O.P. No.3 are directed to return jointly a new cell phone of same model to the Complainant or cost of the  same type of new cell phone. Further, the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.3 are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to-wards harassment, inconvenience and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum till realization.

          Order pronounced in the open court on 22^nd day of June-2022.