DATE OF FILING: 03.09.2016

      DATE OF DISPOSAL: 26.04.2017

Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W):

            The complainant has filed this consumer dispute  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his  grievances before this Forum.     

            2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that being the complainant is minor, this complaint is filed by her father on her behalf as guardian who is lawfully authorized to do so. The complainant purchased one mobile set Model set Model No.X 801, IMEI No. 911444106271289 on dated 17.01.2016 on payment of Rs.1,400/- only. The aforesaid mobile set did not function after 45 days and the complainant was advised to contact the O.P. No.2 who is the authorized service centre. The complainant contacted the O.P.No.2 and handed over the mobile set on 04.03.2016 against which the O.P.No.2 issued job card. As per the job card issued by the O.P.No.2 the defects are display blank, set dead, etc. The complainant purchased the mobile set on 17.01.2016 which became defective after 45 days and the said mobile is with the O.P.No.2 from 04.03.2016 to till date. These defects found while the warranty period is in force. The complainant made several correspondences through email service from 9^th March 2016 to 21^st June 2016 but there is no reply. In spite of correspondence/personal approaches to the O.P.No.2 (service centre) claimed for payment of Rs.500/- only to get the mobile set repaired, which is nothing but unfair trade practice. For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant is suffering from harassment causing mental agony for which is entitled for exemplary compensation. Alleging efficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for exchange of the defective mobile set with a new set of same range or to refund the costs of the mobile amounting to Rs.1400/-, Compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards harassment and mental agony, Rs.3000/- towards the cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.

            3. Notice was issued against the O.P.No.1 but he neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version, hence O.P.No.1is declared set exparte on dated 08.02.2017.  The O.P.No.2 also appeared in this Forum on .8.02.2017 but failed to file his written version of the case.

            4. The learned counsel for the O.P.No.3 appeared in this Forum on 22.03.2017 and on same day filed a memo stating that the O.P. is willing to take back the mobile from the complainant and ready to pay the cost of the mobile without any damage or cost. So, necessary orders may be passed directing the complainant to cause production of the said mobile in the court and also to the O.P. to pay the sale proceeds of the mobile for the complainant.

            5. On the date of hearing of the consumer dispute, we heard oral arguments at length from the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for O.P.No.3 and gone through the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant.  We have also perused the case record and verified the documents. On careful perusal of the documents we found that the complainant on 17.01.2016 purchased a Micromax Mobile as described above on payment of Rs.1400/- as is evident from the case record. It is also not in dispute or doubt that the said mobile set found defective after using only for 45 days for which the complainant produced it before O.P. No.2 for necessary repairing. The O.P.No.2 has also issued job card mentioning the problems of the said mobile set like display blank, set dead etc as evident from the job sheet bearing No.911444106271289 issued on 4.3.2016 by the O.P.No.2 placed as Annexure-2 on the case record. It is also mentioned in the job card that the service is out of warranty services and claimed for Rs.500/- towards repairing charges. It is also a fact not in dispute that the complainant contacted the Micromax company support centre through email but on several approaches i.e. on 17.5.2016, 25.05.2016 and 09.06.2016 to redress her grievances but all went in vain. The O.Ps did not give any heed to her grievances and did not take any steps to replace the defective mobile.  The most unfortunate thing is that till now though the complainant has paid for the mobile but the said mobile set is with O.P. No.2 (service centre) who did not even mind to return the same to the complainant in a working condition.  We have also on perusal of documents found that the O.P. No.2(service centre) has wrongly mentioned in the job sheet that the repairing is out warranty service which is not correct as per the materials placed on the case record. The warranty of the mobile set is for one year and the alleged mobile set found defect during the warrant period and more specifically it was found defective as complained only after using 45 days of its purchase. However, in this case, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.3 after his appearance has filed a memo on 22.03.2017 that he on behalf of O.P.No.3 expressed his willingness to take back the defective mobile from the complainant and ready to pay the cost of the mobile without any damage or cost. In this context, we would like to say that during the course of hearing of the dispute the learned counsel for the complainant is also agreed to the proposal made by the learned counsel for the O.P.No.3. Accordingly, the proposal of both the counsels for the complainant as well as for the O.P.No.3 is acceptable to Forum and the case is decided accordingly by allowing the memo of the O.P.No.3 filed on 22.03.2017 as discussed above. Taking into account to the fact and circumstance of the case and considering the proposal of the parties for amicable settlement of the consumer dispute, we allowed the case of the complainant against O.P. No.2 &3 and dismissed against O.P.No.1.

            7. In the result, the complain petition of the complainant is allowed against the O.P.No.2 & 3 and dismissed against O.P.No.1. The O.P. No.3 is directed to refund Rs.1,400/- (One Thousand Four Hundred) only towards cost of aforesaid Micromax defective mobile set to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The O.P.No.2 is directed to return the defective mobile set to the complainant and the complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set to O.P.No.3 on receipt of the price of said mobile. The O.P.No.2&3 are directed to comply the orders within 45 days failing which complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing with case till actual payment is made.  However, in the fact and circumstance, there is no order as to cost and compensation.  This case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.

            8. The order is pronounced on this day of 26^th April 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of