Orissa

Kendujhar

02/2015

Susmita Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, Micromax Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Prativa Mishra

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 02 OF 2015

Susmita Mishra, aged about 35 years,

W/o: Bibekananda Mishra,

At: Mining Road, Post: Keonjhargarh,

P.S: Town, Dist: Keonjhar               ……………………………………..Complainant

                          Vrs.

1. Director, Micromax Company Ltd.

22P 144, Phase-II, New Delhi,

New Delhi-110029

2. Mobile World, Near Ram Mandir,

Mining Road, Keonjhar,

Post: Keonjhargarh,

P.S: Town, Dist: Keonjhar                ……………………………………..Opp. Parties

PRESENT- Sri Akshaya Kumar Purohit, PRESIDENT

                    Smt. B. Giri, MEMBER (W)

                    Sri S.C. Sahoo, MEMBER

Advocate for the complainant- Smt. Prativa Mishra

Advocate for Op1                   - Set exparte

Advocate for Op2                   - Sri S.S. Panda & Associates

_____________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing - 17.11.2015                            Date of Order - 09.12.2015

______________________________________________________________________________                                                                

Sri A.K. Purohit, President  

1. The case of the complainant is that, she had purchased a Micromax mobile handset vide model No. MICROMAX A 108 for a consideration of Rs. 11,400/- on dated 29.11.22014 from the O.P.No.2. The complainant alleges that after use of 3 to 4 days within the warranty period the said mobile hand set become defective and is totally not functioning. To this the complainant produces the same before the O.P.No.2 for repair. But the complainant did not receive any information either from the service center or from the O.P.No.2 regarding the service of the mobile hand set till 22 days and hence lastly the complainant send a letter to the O.P.No.1 for refund of money but she was not provided with any service from the O.Ps. Hence the complaint.

2. The O.P.No.1 neither appears nor proceeded with the hearing of the case and hence he was set expert vide order dated 31.7.2015. The O.P.No.2 contested the case by filing his written version. According to O.P.No.2 , on receipt of the mobile handset from the complainant on dated 10.12.2014, the answering O.P. send the same to the Micromax Servicing Center, Bhubaneswar on the same date along with a job sheet bearing No.1214-13872398. The O.P.2 averred that although the repair work has already been completed the complainant did not coming to receive back her mobile handset. The O.P.No.2 denied the complainant’s allegation and claims that he has provided service and hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

3. Heard both the parties. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, since the mobile handset was found defective from the very beginning and was not repairable for a long period of 22 days there must be manufacturing defects and since the product is warranted for a period of one year the O.Ps are liable to refund the price. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P.No.2 submitted that on the date of received of the mobile handset the O.P.2 immediately took step for its repair and send it to the servicing center and hence the O.P.2 provided service. The further argument of the O.P.2 is that, the warranty is provided by the manufacturer and the O.P.2 is only a dealer and hence it is the manufacturer who is liable for the defect in the handset.

4. Perused the material available on record. Perused the bill issued by the Mobile World (O.P.2) vide Sl.No.1595 dated 29.11.2014. It is evident from this document that the complainant had purchased a MICROMAX A 108 model mobile handset from the O.P.2 for a consideration of Rs. 11,400/-. This fact has also not denied by the O.P.  It is seen from the warranty statement filed by the complainant that, the manufacturer warrants the product to be free from defects in material and workmanship, and the warranty covers twelve months for mobile handset and six months for accessories. It is also an admitted fact that, the mobile handset of the complainant was found defective and the same was handed over to the O.P.2 on dated 10.12.2014. Therefore the mobile handset was found defective within 11 days of its purchase. Perused the job sheet filed by the O.P.2. It is in the name of Mr. Saroj Kumar Mahanta. During course of argument the learned advocate for the O.P.2 submitted that since the mobile hand set was sent to the service center through the O.P.2 the name of his representative was mentioned in the job sheet. To this submission the O.P.2 has not produced any believable evidence either the affidavit evidence of the O.P.2 or the affidavit of Saroj Kumar Mahanta. Therefore in the absence of believable evidence it is doubtful whether the Job Sheet filed by the O.P. is relating to the complainant’s handset or not. The O.P. has also not produced any evidence to show that after repair the handset is in working condition. With this evidence available on record it is believed that, the handset is not free from defects and there is manufacturing defects in the handset.

5. Coming to the point of liability, the consumer has direct touch with the dealer and not with the manufacturer. The dealer is dealing with the consumer for the manufacturer. Therefore the manufacturer and the dealer both are jointly and severally liable.

6. With this discussion and material available on record, in my opinion, refund of price will meet the ends of justice.

 

 

Hence order

    The O.Ps. are directed to refund the price of the complainant’s mobile handset, i.e. Rs. 11.400/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards cost within the same period.

Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed.      

 

        I agree                                              I agree

 (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                  (Smt. B. Giri)                                  (Sri A.K. Purohit)

Member, DCDRF                             Member (W), DCDRF                            President, DCDRF

    KEONJHAR                                          KEONJHAR                                          KEONJHAR

 

                                                                                    Dictated & Corrected by me.

                                                                                              (Sri A.K. Purohit)                                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT, DCDRF KEONJHAR