IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            Dated this the  23^rd  day of March 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

       CC.No.284/2015

Biju                                                   :         Complainant

S/o Chandran

Vazhivelil Padeettathil

Padanayar Kulangara Vadakkum Muri

Karunagappally

V/s

1. Evermax Mobile Mall

           K.C. Centre

          High school Jn.

         Karunagappally

2.      Micromax Company

          90-B, Sector-18

          Gudgav-122015

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President

          This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- from opposite party No.1&2.

          The allegations in the complaint in short are as follows.

The complainant on 21.06.2015 purchased one Micromax A 120 model Mobile Phone for Rs.8000/- from Evermax Mobile Mall functioning at K.C Centre Complex at Karunagappally.  Unfortunately from the early days of  purchase there were problems for the mobile hand set and hanging status and got stucked, while charging the same was getting heated.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party shop from where he purchased the mobile set and told the defects noted by him.  There upon the 1^st opposite party told him that due to the defect in the connector the problem might have arise and they agree to set right

2

the defects but they told that the service centre is functioning at Karbala Junction, Kollam.  Hence the complainant entrusted the mobile hand set to the 1^st opposite party and returned.    After  one  week he again approached the 1^st  opposite party and taken back the hand set and ever there after the mobile phone has returned.  After one week he again approached the 1^st opposite party and taken back the hand set and thereafter also the mobile phone has showed the problems.   Again   the  complainant   approached   the 1^st  opposite  party  and informed the matter and there up on the 1^st opposite party obtained the hand set from him and returned after 15-20 days, but not cured the defects.  On 22.08.15 he directly went the service centre at Karbala Junction, Kollam and informed the matter.  There upon they expressed their inability to solve the problem.  According to them the defects could be cured only by the 2^nd opposite party who is the manufacturing company as there are problems in the main board and permanent  solution can be made by the manufacturing company.  There up on the complainant entrusted the hand set at the service centre at Karbala Junction.  After one month the service centre has informed him over phone to take back the phone accordingly the same.  However after 2-3 days the same problem occurred.  Hence he approached the 1^st opposite party and told that the hand set has not properly repaired and defect has not be cured and the same cannot be done also and hence demanded to replace a new mobile hand set.  There upon the 1^st opposite party insisted the complainant to return the hand set by stating that the 2^nd opposite party (manufacturing company).  Accordingly he entrusted the same to the 1^st opposite party but till date the 1^st or 2^nd opposite party  has  not  replaced  the  same.  However  on  12.10.2015  the  1^st opposite party informed that now the problems are over and the mobile phone  has been working properly and also returned the same to the complainant .  But actually the mobile hand set was having the very same defect and hence he could not use

3

the hand set. By noting the above problems he intimated the fact to the customer care office of Micromax Comapny by sending e-mail on 13.10.15.  But there is no response till date nor the hand set has become working till date.  Hence  he sent lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party  through Registered Post.  But there is no response.  Hence this complaint.

Though notice was served on opposite party No.1&2, they remain exparte.  Complainant is not represented by any counsel.  However exparte evidence recorded, statement of the complainant has been recorded by the forum who reiterated his case  in the chief examination and got marked Ext.P1 to P3 documents.  The un challenged oral evidence deposed by the complainant as PW1  coupled with Ext.P1 to P3 documents would establish the following.

The complainant has purchased one Micromax company made mobile phone from 1^st opposite party Evermax Mobile Mall Karunagappaly by paying Rs.8000/-in cash.  Ext.P1 invoice issued by opposite party No.1 would corroborate the above version of PW1 regarding  the purchase of mobile phone from the 1^st opposite party,  that after 2-3 days use the mobile phone started to produce over heat and  switched  off  automatically  and  thereafter  it  would  not get on,  that the complainant brought the same to the 1^st opposite party showed the same and intimated the defect regarding the phone and that the 1^st opposite party admitted to get it repaired and cure the defect.  But it ended in failure and thereafter it has not been get charged, that the same process repeated 2-3 times at the shop of the 1^st opposite party.  But the defect in the mobile set has not been cured.  Hence the 1^st opposite party referred the complainant to the service centre at Karbala Junction.  Ext.P2 is the service sheet dated 22.08.2015 issued by the said service centre that while the complainant entrusting  the Micromax mobile phone at the service centre for repair.  In Ext.P2  it  is stated

4

that the mobile set is dead.  It is also brought out in evidence through PW1 that as per Ext.P1 invoice one year warranty has been given to the mobile set and the  same  has  become dead within 2 months of its purchase.  It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant has caused to send lawyer notice to the opposite party No.1&2 intimating these facts.  The sending of lawyer notice is evidenced by  copy of Ext.P3  lawyer notice  and  Ext.P3(a)  Postal receipt.  It is clear from the available materials that even if of Ext.P3 lawyer notice has been received the opposite parties have neither cured the defects found in the mobile phone nor replaced the same with a brand new one  since the mobile phone purchased by the complainant has become defective within the warranty period.  In the circumstances it is clear that there is deficiency  in  service   and  unfair  trade  practice  on  the  side of the opposite party No.1&2.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the mobile phone replaced by a brand new one or get the price refunded from the opposite party  No.1&2 jointly and severally.

 It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant  though spent Rs.8000/- as cost of the mobile phone as per Ext.P1 invoice, he could not use the same properly at least for one week.  The complainant has also sustained severe mental harassment apart from financial loss.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party No.1&2 jointly and severally.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that Rs.5000/- shall be sufficient compensation Rs.2000/- shall be sufficient costs in this case.  The points answered accordingly. 

5

In the result complaint stand allowed in the following terms.

          The opposite party No.1&2 are directed to replace the mobile phone purchased by the complainant as per Ext.P1 invoice by a brand new one or to repay its price Rs.8000/- to the complainant.

The opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Opposite No.1&2 are directed to comply with the directions within 45 days failing which the complainant is entitled to realise Rs.13,000/- (Rs.8000+Rs.5000) with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation along with costs Rs.2000/- from opposite party No.1&2 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the    23^rd  day of March  2018.

                                E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                               M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                           Forwarded/by order

                                                                                                       Senior Superintendent

I N D E X

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant

PW1:- Biju.C

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1: -          Invoice

Ext.P2:-           Terms and conditions

Ext.P3:-           Letter dated 13.10.2015

               E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                       M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                                                                                       Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior Superintendent