- The Complaint of the Complainant case is that the Complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile of model A-110 from Rama mobile planet, Hirakud (O.P. No.2) on dated 19.04.2014 bearing cash memo No. 1529. 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 to do so and advise him to contact the authorised service centre of Micromax Co.Ltd at Sambalpur i.e. R.R.Mobile, near Shrusti Nurshing Home, Budharaja Sambalpur(O.P. No.3). Thereafter the Complainant deposited the said mobile to O.P. No.3 on dtd. 04.04.2015 for removal of said defect but the service centre did not inform the Complainant to receive his mobile nor giving any positive reply to the Complainant. The Complainant served legal registered post notice to the O.Ps on 17.06.2015 but no response was received by the O.Ps.
- The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 are set ex-parte. The O.P. No.2 filed his W.S. without copy served to the Complainant. In his written statement, the O.P. No.2 mentioned that he is not responsible for any manufacturing defect as he is a retailer of Rama Mobile palnet, Hirakud. He admitted in his version that he sold the mobile to the Complainant on dtd. 19.04.2014 bearing cash memo No. 1529 and the company gives one year guarantee.
The Complainant and O.Ps are absent an each date of hearing. Hence the case is disposed of on merit.
ISSUES
- Whether the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P. under the provision of the act?
- Is there any deficiency in the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the Complainant entitle to get any relief?
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P. under the provision of the act?
The Complainant purchased One Micromax Mobile of model A-110 from O.P. No.2 who is the retailer under O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 is the authorized service dealer. So the Complainant is the consumer to the O.P. under provision of the act.
ISSUE NO.2: Is there any deficiency in the part of the O.Ps?
There was manufacturing defect in the said mobile. The defect was found within guarantee period. After depositing for servicing for removal of defect before the O.P. No.3, who is authorised services centre of the said company, The O.P. No.3 was silent and did not return the mobile to the Complainant. Hence there is deficiency in part of O.P. No.3.
Further there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile. The O.P. No.1 did not step regarding removal of defect to the mobile. Hence there is deficiency in the part of O.P. No.1.
The O.P. NO.2 is the retailer of the mobile company. He has no scope to replace or removal of defect if any problem found in the mobile. So there is no 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 complaint was lodges before the O.Ps as well as the Consumer Commission within time. So the Complainant is entitle to get all reliefs what he mentioned 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 and not taken any step for removal the defect jointly and severally. Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.3 are directed to pay a new cell phone of same model to the Complainant or cost of the new cell phone. Further, the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.3 are directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to-wards harassment, inconvenience caused and also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost 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 30th day of April-2022
