D.o.F:15/12/12

D.o.O:7/3/2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO. 330/12

                  Dated this, the 7^th   day of March 2013

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                               : PRESIDENT

SMT.K.G.BEENA                            : MEMBER

Ranjith.T.R,

Puthiyaparambil House,                                  : Complainant

Shankarampady Po, Chengala ,Kasaragod.

(in person)

Micromax Head Office,

Micromax House 697, Udyog Vihar ,Phase/V,

Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

2. Micromax Customer Relations Office,                    : Opposite parties

Plot No.21/12, Block A, Nariana Industrial Area,

Phase II, New Delhi, 110028.

3. The Manager, E/Planet,

Ist Floor, City Centre, Bank Road,

Kasaragod.671121.

(Ops 1 to 3 Exparte)

                                                        ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

   Bereft of unnecessaries the case of  complainant Sri.Ranjith is that the  Micromax A100 smart phone worth Rs.9850/-he purchased on 27/8/12  became defective within one month of its purchase though the manufacturer, Ist opposite party had provided two year warranty for the same.  He entrusted the mobile hand set with 3^rd opposite party, the authorized service centre for repair but they did not repair and return it to the complainant. Being a teacher of a Government Higher Secondary School, he faced much difficulties due to the irresponsible act of opposite parties.  Even the e-mail communications and other communications to opposite parties 1 to 3 were not redressed his grievance.  Hence the complaint.

2.  Notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 were sent by registered post with acknowledgment due.  Notice to opposite parties 1&2 were duly served.  But opposite parties No.3 did not claim the notice even after receiving  intimation.  Hence notice to 3^rd opposite party returned unclaimed.  Therefore opposite parties 1 to 3 had to be set exparte.

3.  Complainant examined himself as PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 marked  on his side. Ext.A1 is the copy of the bill for  Rs.9850/  dtd 27/8/12 evidencing the purchase of Micromax A100 smart phone.  Ext.A2 is the copy of its warranty card and Ext.A3 is the copy of the customer Job card issued by 3^rd opposite party at the time of entrustment of mobile phone for repair.  Complainant as PW1 deposed  in tune with  his complaint.  He deposed that he faced much difficulties due to the irresponsible deficient service  rendered by 3^rd opposite party.  PW1 further added that being  a school teacher he lost many of his contact numbers stored in the mobile phone that aggravated his miseries.

4.  The non/servicing of a mobile phone within its warranty period is a  serious deficiency in service  on the part of opposite parties.  Now a days the mobile companies are marketing umpteen number of mobile phones offering warranty without any adequate proper test.   As a result the   complaints against the manufacturing  defects of the mobile phones are rampant.  They should put an end to this pestering problem.  But it is quite unfortunate that the manufacturer Ist opposite party did not even care to respond to the notice issued by this Forum. The  printed warranty  card is not a conclusive proof that the product is subjected to any proper adequate test.  It is incumbent upon every manufacturer to enclose a warranty card showing its IMEI number of the mobile phone they offered for sale to prove that the said  particular unit is also subjected to proper adequate test before issuing warranty

5.  Considering the pinch the complainant suffered  because of the defects occurred to his newly purchased mobile phone worth 9850/- within a month of its purchase, we feel that this is a fit case to award compensation for his mental agony and sufferings.

6.  The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta reported in 1994 AIR 787 and in the case Ghaziabad Development Authority vs  Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65 has held that compensation may constitute actual loss or expected losses and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult, injury or loss and the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim compensation for any injustice suffered and  the Forum is empowered to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.  We think this is a fit case to award compensation to the  complainant for the mental agony and injustice he suffered.

7.  Unfortunately, our manufacturers, traders and sellers have developed a practice or tendency of not admitting defects in goods when pointed out by the consumers and not replacing the same without a contest.  In other advanced  countries even if there is aggressive marketing, defective products are easily replaced.  That practice has to be adopted.  This would definitely increase the confidence of a consumer on that particular manufacturer/trader.  Instead of disputing  the undisputed facts the manufacturers and sellers should resolve the matter by replacing or refunding the price of the defective product or article as the case may be . 

   In the result complaint is allowed and the  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the purchase price of the A100 smart phone Rs.9850/-  with 12% interest from the date of complaint till payment together with a compensation of 7500/- and cost of Rs. 3000/-   Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Exts:

A1-Copy of the bill

A2-Copy of warranty card

A3-copy of customer job card

PW1-Ranjith.T.R-complainant

MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT