Karnataka

Dharwad

CC/285/2014

Harish.K.Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.K.Cell zone,Dharawd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Patil

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

                               

DATE:   27^th March 2015       

 

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

3) Shri.M.Lokesh          : Member 

 

Complaint No.: 285/2014  

 

Complainant/s:       Harish Kogganna Acharya,

Age: 23 yrs, Occ. Pvt. Service, in TATA Motors, Dharwad, R/o.Kumareshwar Nagar, Dharwad.

 

(By Sri.M.S.Patil, Adv.)

 

 

 

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. D.K.Cell Zone. Beside Gopal Krishna Mangal Karyalay, Tikare Road, Dharwad.
2. M/s.Micromax Informatic Ltd., 90B Sector 18, Gurgaon, Delhi.

 

1.  

 

 

O R D E R

 

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

 

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to replace new handset of Micromax mobile or to refund the amount of Rs.14,100/- with interest along with Rs.5000/- as compensation, for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant purchased Micromax mobile set manufactured by the respondent.2 through respondent.1 for a consideration of Rs.14100/- under the receipt no.9479 dt.31.01.2014 bearing IMEI No.9113348507705519 with one year warranty. From the date of purchase the said mobile set was troubleshooting and the complainant faced many problems relating to its manufacture and software viz., immediate shutdown etc. The complainant approached R1 and revealed the facts. During that time the R1 told, the said defects is due to manufactural one and advised the complainant to approach authorized service center at Hubli. Accordingly complainant approached authorized center of R2 but no useful purpose was served and defects have been continued same. After that complainant sent requisition letter by RPAD on 27.08.2014. Despite service no response from respondent. On several times complainant made approach both to the respondents and to the authorized center through e-mails but no useful purpose served. Hence complainant got issued legal notice to respondents. Though it was served no response. It amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought

3.     Despite service of notice the respondents remained absent. Hence, the respondents have been placed exparte and exparte proceedings was initiated.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 

 Complainant admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.   Affirmatively
2.  Accordingly  
3.  As per order

 

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition. So also as the respondents remained absent contentions of the complainant stood unimpeached.

6.     Perusal of invoice, e-mail correspondence and job cards and legal notices which have been marked Ex C1-C8 (3) reveals that complainant had purchased the mobile set from respondent.1 manufactured by respondent.2. The job card Ex.C2 reveals the mobile set in question is suffering from defects (Ex.C2 to C3). For repeated approaches, e-mail transaction Ex.C4 to C5 rectifies the same. Notices Ex.C6 and 7 reveals complainant made humble requests to set right or to replace the new one or otherwise to refund the same. Non compliance and non reply to the notices further rectifies and confirms the respondents have committed deficiency in service which amounts unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant has successfully with appulsive and cogent evidence established his case deficiency in service. Hence, complainant entitled for the relief as sought.

7.     In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively & accordingly .

8.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

Order

        Complaint is allowed in part. The respondents.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the mobile set with the new one along with Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, respondents jointly and severally shall refund the cost of the mobile set deducting the VAT Rs.735/- for utilization of the set from the date of purchase till approach of this Forum with interest  @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 27^th day of March 2015)

 

 

 

(Sri.M.Lokesh)                     (Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                             (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                 Member                                                 President

Dist.Consumer Forum            Dist.Consumer Forum                        Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR