BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

08^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

O R D E R

SMT. SHANTHA P.K, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards the cost of the mobile handset with interest at 12% p.a, to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- towards inconvenience and mental agony suffered by him and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant purchased Micromax A210, Canvas-4 mobile handset bearing IMEI No.911316301591481 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.18,000/- with a warranty of 12 months.  The said handset was manufactured and marketed by OP-2.  That within the warranty period complainant has given the said handset for repairs to the OP-3 service centre for 6 times.  The defects of the handset are Network drop, hanging, applications were crashing, stored contact phone numbers were disappearing / deleting, touch screen was not responding and it was always flickering, less battery backup, overheating and 3G internet was not functioning.  The defects of the said handset were duly recorded in the job sheets of the OP-3.

3. On 18.02.2014 the complainant gave the handset for repairs for the sixth time, the incharge of the service centre told him that the software in the handset cannot be repaired, as it was ridden with manufacturing defects.  He also assured him that he would make necessary arrangements with OP-2 for the replacement of the handset with a new one.  The defective handset retained in the service centre.  On 15.03.2014 the complainant received message from “DM Micron” informing that the job sheet No.S010050-0214-8217759 has been processed and that he should collect the handset from the service centre.  On the same day the complainant visited that centre.  The incharge of the service centre handed over the same old handset to the complainant saying that it was repaired and OP-2 refused to replace the defective handset with a new one.  Upon operating the handset complainant found the same defects persisted in it.  Therefore, the complainant refused to take delivery of the handset and the same retained in the service centre’s custody.  Complainant issued a notice dated 20.03.2014 to the OPs-1 to 3.  But there was no reply from OPs.1 & 2, OP-3 refused to receive the notices dated 20.03.2014, 26.03.2014 and 29.03.2014.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, complainant prays for directing OPs to pay sum of Rs.18,000/- towards the cost of the mobile handset with interest @ 12% p.a, to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- towards inconvenience and mental agony and to pay legal expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

5. The notice of complaint was issued to the OPs and despite service of notice, the OPs failed to appear and contest the complaint and has been placed ex-parte.  Thereafter, the complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence and written submission.

6. Perused the averments made in the complaint, affidavit filed in lieu of oral evidence, written arguments, documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

7. Admittedly the complainant purchased a mobile handset Micromax A210 Canvas 4 from OP-1 on 02.10.2013 by paying a sum of Rs.18,000/-.  The said mobile handset is covered by one year warranty.  Admittedly within the warranty period the complainant noticed defects of the handset they are Network drop, hanging, applications were crashing, touch screen was not responding and it was always flickering, less battery backup, overheating and 3G internet was not functioning.  So after noticing the problems/defects he handed over the said handset to OP-3 service centre on several dates i.e., on 31.10.2013, 03.01.2014, 11.02.2014, 18.02.2014.  OP-3 issued the material received note.  Documents to that effect are produced.

8. Due to the negligence acts of OPs, the complainant is unable to use the mobile phone.  Even the complainant has issued notice to the OPs but there was no reply from the OPs.  It is pertinent to note here that despite retaining the handset with them for a long time OPs failed to repair the handset.  The handset in question had defects which the OPs failed to rectify.  The material placed on record by the complainant also goes to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9. The complainant having paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- for purchasing the said handset he is unable to use and enjoy the same even within the warranty period.  The defect in the handset could not be resolved in the authorized service centre.  Therefore, it is evident that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  The OPs are responsible for replacing the said handset with a new handset or return the price of the handset to the complainant.  The problem with the handset occurred during the warranty period the OPs have also failed to provide satisfactory service to the complainant in attending the defects occurred in the said handset.  The complainant could not make use of the handset even for 4-5 months.  The complainant was unable to make use of the handset and this has been put him to great hardship and inconvenience certainly he must have suffered mental agony because of the non performance of the handset within a short time after its purchase.  The OPs.1 to 3 did not appear and contest the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:             

       O R D E R

The complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part.  OPs.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the mobile handset in question with a brand new handset or return Rs.18,000/- to the complainant being the value of the said handset.  Further the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part together with litigation costs of Rs.3,000/-.

OPs shall comply the order passed by this Forum within a month from today.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 08^th day of December 2015)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln* 

COMPLAINT NO.217/2015

Complainant                 -        Sri. Harikrishnan K,

Bangalore-560 076.

                                          -vs-

Opposite Parties           -        1) Mahalakshmi Collections,

Bangalore-560011.

2) Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

Gurgaon – 122015, Haryana.

3) M.S.N Communication,

Micromax Service Centre,

Bangalore-560070.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 14.10.2015.

1. Sri. Harikrishnan K

          OPs.1, 2 & 3    -       Absent

MEMBER                           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Vln*