Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one Micro Max Smart phone Canvas 2 plus on 12.09.2013 on payment of entire money of Rs. 11,050/- from M/s. D.P. Electronics bill No. DPE/08564, IMEI No. 911314102756452, 911314102960450 Model: A11OQ in the name of Alakapriya Acharya, 12, Circus Range, Kolkata-700019 and the set is under the one year warranty.

          After purchase of the same and use of the same within a few months, it was noticed that phone vibration is not working and on 09.06.2014 it was taken to the service center M/s. AnannayaInfotel, 44, ShyampallyJadavpur, Kolkata – 700032 and same was deposited there for repairing and was returned after 10 days by the service center.  Again the phone screen started working automatically but again the set was deposited at the same service center on 08.07.2014 and after 10 days the phone was returned after repairing.  But again it is found that the front camera was not working and the set was taken to the same service center on 11.08.2014 when complainant went to collect the phone on 10.09.2014 as per telephone talk but it was informed that the phone was made trouble and he shall have given a new PNA No. 814-11678786 and same was returned on 23.09.2014.  But again the set was found defective and out of dual SIM one SIM is working and another SIM is not working when the complainant again went to the service center and service center kept it for 40 days and returned after the warranty period is over and in this regard the complainant sent email to the Micromaxcompany on 12.09.2014, 17.09.2014, 26.09.2014 and 28.09.2014 and only reply was that it will be repaired and returned to the complainant.  But there was no reply against the last letter dated 28.09.2014 and for such sort of deficient manner of service and for not giving proper service in respect of said mobile set as per warrantee by the ops, complainant has been suffered much and they have not enjoyed the mobile set for which he prayed for refund of the entire amount including compensation etc.

          On the other hand op M/s. D.P. Electronics appeared and submitted that no doubt they sold the said set to the complainant and in fact regarding giving service, it is the duty of the manufacturer to give service through their service center and complainant got service from service center of Micromax Mobile and there is not liability of the present op no.1 M/s. D.P. Eelctronics. 

Notice was also served upon the op no.2AnannayaInfotel but service center of the Micromax but they did not appear to contest and accordingly the case is heard finally on the ground that op no.1 after that did not file any evidence etc.

So, we shall have to decide the entire consumer dispute on proper merit.

Decision with reasons

On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version op no.1 it is clear that complainant purchased one of the set of Micromax Smart Phone being Model No. A11oQ on payment of Rs. 11,050/- on 12.09.2013.  No doubt M/s. AnannayaInfotel received the said set on 08.07.2014 for repairing as there was some defects.  Thereafter received on 11.08.2014 for repairing and further it was received on 26.09.2014 for repairing.  But ultimately this phone cannot be used by the complainant smoothly and defect one after another is detected and on last occasion when the said set was handed over to the op no.2 only handset was received.

But fact remains that the manufacturer through their service center failed to give proper service and in fact after keeping it for many months and without giving proper service and without removing the defect of the said set, ops’ service center completed the warranty period and stated that warranty period already is over.  So, complainant cannot get any relief and op returned the said set.  Now the question is what is the purpose of purchasing the mobile set by a customer?  Invariably for the purpose of using it daily and if defect is always found day to day after purchase then there was no necessity to purchase such a defective handset mobile.  No doubt complainant as per warrantee clause submitted the same again and again but manufacturer’s service center failed to remove such defect and ultimately handed over the said mobile set stating that warrantee period is over.  What proves that said mobile set was defective with manufacturing defect.

Truth is that nowadays it is the practice of the company to direct the service center to keep it for many months and handed over the same when the warranty period is found expired and in this case it is done by the op no.2 the authorized service center of the manufacturing company and from the very conduct of the service center it is clear that manufacturing company or service center have not given any proper service.  At the same time op no.1 as dealer of the said company Micromax is equally liable for giving proper relief to the complainant but op no.1 did not show of any willingness though complainant sent letter to the op nos. 1 & 2 including manufacturing company.  But all the ops failed to give the complainant any relief and failed to give the set repaired with proper service.

So, in the eye of law both the ops are found negligent and deficient in service and they have not acted as per warrantee clause and to deceive the complainant to get relief, they returned the handset after expiry of warrantee period.  But we have gathered such an act on the part of the ops which are no doubt unfaithful and it is deceitful manner of act for which the complainant is entitled to get relief from the ops jointly and severally.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 and same is allowed exparte against op no.2 but in both the cases each op shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as cost to the complainant.

Ops jointly and severally the manufacturing company are hereby directed to pay the entire price amount of Rs. 11,050/- to the complainant when ops did not give him any replacement and did not give any proper service about the defective handset and payment shall be made by the op jointly and severally along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for harassing and also for covering the warrantee period by the op no.2 in the name of repairing of the said set.

So, op nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,050/- + Rs. 5,000/- litigation cost and Rs. 5,000/- compensation that is total Rs. 21,050/- within 15 days from the date of this order failing which ops jointly and severally shall have to pay penal damages  at the rateRs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree, complainant shall have to handover the said set to the service center on proper receipt.If penal damages is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum’s account.

Ops are directed jointly and severally to comply the Forum’s order failing for which further penalty and fine may be imposed against them.