Date of Filing: 11-07-2016 Date of Final Order: 21-02-2017
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.
The brief fact of the complaint as culled out from the record is that on 08/04/2016 the Complainant purchased one mobile set (Micromax-Q346) cost of Rs.4,500/- from Dristi Optical, R.N. Road, Cooch Behar. From the date of purchased the said mobile set of the Complainant was running properly but on 20/04/2016 the Complainant noticed that the Power of the said mobile dose not switch on. On 24/05/2016 the Complainant handed over the said mobile to the O.P, Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar (Authorized Service centre of Micromax Mobile Phone)and the O.P issued a Job Card bearing No. E030461-0516-235655231 dated 26/05/2016. The O.P also provided a Helpline number to the complainant and said that the further correspondence regarding the status of the mobile phone must be done through the number. The Complainant makes contact with the Helpline number on several occasions and she also received SMS from the company. On several occasions the other side took time without giving any explanations. The Complainant contacted with the O.P on several occasions but the O.P did not replied. Till today the mobile handset is under the custody of the OP.
Due to such activities of the O.P, the Complainant has been suffering from mental pain & agony, harassment and financial loss.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.P to pay (i) Rs.4,500/- as the purchased value of the aforesaid mobile, (ii) Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and harassment and (iii) Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P, Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing W/V denying all allegations of the complainant contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P is that when the Complainant brought the said handset on 26/05/2016 with complaining “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON” then the O.P after examined the said handset issued a job card in the name of the complainant and immediately sent the said set to Head office for repair. After getting back the repaired mobile set from the head office the OP asked the complainant to take back the said hand set, but the complainant refuse to take it. Since then the Complainant never came to this O.P. The O.P also submitted that the case is bad for non-joinder the Manufacturing Company as a necessary party.
Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances the complaint of the Complainant be dismissed with heavy cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service and he is liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
It appears from the record that the Complainant purchased a Mobile hand set on 08/04/2016 and handed over the set to the O.P for repairing the set on 26/05/2016. The O.P issued a Job Card in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant purchased the mobile set of the Micromax Company against payment of Rs.4,500/- and the O.P is the Service Centre of that company, for which we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the “Consumer” of the O.P.
Point No.2.
The office/shop of the service centre (O.P) is situated in this district and the value of the present complaint is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased a mobile hand set of Micromax Company on 08/04/2016 by making payment of Rs.4,500/-. The said set bears the warranty period of one year up to 07/04/2017.
It is also not in dispute that the seller, Drishti Optical issued a Cash Memo in favour of the Complainant. This seller is not a party in this case.
The point of the dispute is that the said mobile hand set within a short period started giving problem (POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON)as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence on affidavit. The Complainant handed over the said mobile set to the O.P. for servicing but the O.P did not return the set to the Complainant after servicing.
The O.P Service Centre has contested the case and by filing W/V, contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable before this Forum.
It is the case of the O.P. that the Complainant has filed this case for his illegal gain. The Complainant purchased the mobile hand set on 08/04/2016 and first time he visited this O.P on 26/05/2016, complaining “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON” then the O.P after examined the said handset issued a job card in the name of the complainant and immediately sent the said set to Head office for repair. After getting back the the repaired mobile set from the head office the OP asked the complainant to take back the said hand set , but the complainant refuse to take it.
Both parties filed evidence on affidavit and the OP also files written argument.
We have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the documents, evidence on affidavit filed by the parties. It appears that the O.P received the mobile hand set from the Complainant on 26/05/2016 and issued Job Card with reported problem “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON”.
The O.P after examined the said handset issued a job card in the name of the complainant and immediately sent the said set to Head office for repair. After getting back the repaired mobile set from the head office the OP asked the complainant to take back the said hand set, but the complainant refuse to take it. The O.P is still ready to hand over the repaired hand set to the complainant.
There is also no iota of evidence in the record that the O.P contacted with the Complainant to receive the set as he stated in evidence and W/V. There is no evidence adduced by the O.P that the power of the hand set dose not switch on due to not having proper knowledge of handling its software or due to virus attacks or excessive charging.
As per warranty condition the service centre had the duty to return the set in workable condition after proper servicing. Thus, the contention of the O.P has not been proved also the O.P fails to file any cogent documents. Till date the mobile hand set in question is lying with the O.P since 08.04.2016. Thus, the deficiency in service of the O.P cannot be ruled out also the Complainant is deprived from using the mobile set that he purchased with Rs.4,500/-.
From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty period thus it is reasonably be presume that the said set has some inherent defect In view of ruling reported in 2014 CJ 402 (NC) and it is also settled that there is no need of expert opinion where defects are glaring. The Ld. Agent for O.P has taken plea that the power of the hand set dose not switch on due to not having proper knowledge of handling its software or due to virus attacks or excessive charging, but there are no documents to prove the same. Besides, it is proved that the O.P did not render proper service to the Complainant and thus, the act and conduct of the O.P falls under Section 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986. It is the duty of the service provider to render proper service to the customer free of cost within the warranty period as per warranty conditions. As and when the problem cropped up within the warranty period the consumer has every right to go service centre to avail proper service for which the plea as taken by the O.P is not sustainable.
It is pertinent point to mention that in this Forum many cases has been filed against this O.P alleging deficiency in service and most of the cases are decided against this O.P for which it is crystal clear that this service centre is working in this district by not rendering proper service to the customer. In this case the O.P did not give proper service also kept the mobile hand set in their custody for a long period (from 26/05/2016 to till date). Thus, deficiency in service of the O.P cannot be ruled out.
The prayer of the Complainant is to return back the total purchased amount of the disputed hand set with compensation by the O.P In this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that only being the service centre of the company the O.P is responsible to give proper services to the customer of the company. The main problem is the “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON”. The O.P in his all document admitted the fact that the said hand set is not working. The problem arises within the warranty period. From 26/05/2016 to till date the hand set is under the custody of the said O.P
Be that as it may, on foregoing discussion, circumstances to the case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we have reason to believe that the mobile hand set is defective and the O.P is liable to sort out the problem.
As it is already proved that the O.P. have deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief with compensation.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
it is ORDERED that,
The present Case No. CC/69/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The O.P is directed to hand over the mobile hand set to the Complainant with running condition absolutely free of cost within 45 days. As the mobile hand set is under the custody of the companies service centre from last Nine months, the warranty of the said mobile hand set will be valid for another Nine months from the last date of present warranty date (08/04/2016 to 07/04/2017). As a service provider of the Manufacturing Company (Micromax), the O.P is liable to give the extended warranty period to the Complainant. The O.P is further directed to pay the Complainant Rs.2,000/- as compensation. The entire order shall be complied with by the O.P within 45 days i/d the O.P shall pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
