Date of Filing: 06-09-2016 Date of Final Order: 31-03-2017
Sri Gurupada Mondal, President.
This is an application under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 filed by one Sri Shyamal Kumar Rudra against Mahamaya Enterprise and YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. praying for refund of Rs.24,999/- plus interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment & litigation cost.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased one YU5050 Mobile handset on 05/01/2016 through amazon.com vide Invoice No. HR-SDSE-144105041-520072 and the said Mobile set was found defective within six months from the date of its purchase and the Complainant visited YU Service Centre i.e. Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar on 24/06/2016. The Service Centre refused to receive the Mobile handset on the ground that it had only one IMEI number instead of two and the Complainant contacted the YU Customer Support over telephone No.18602-122122 and they told about the two IMEI numbers. Thereafter, the Service Centre received the said mobile handset and stated that it would not be repairable at their Centre and would require to dispatch it to Delhi for repairs. The Complainant had to purchase a Mobile set worth of Rs.10,797/- for his own use.
It is the further case of the Complainant that on 15/07/2016, he visited the Service Centre and came to know that the Mobile set was not sent for repairing on the ground that the job sheet with BAR Code was not created and the Complainant again contacted YU Customer Support and job sheet was created on 15/07/2016. The O.P. No.1 stated that it would require 15 days to repair and to that effect, the Complainant lodged a complaint against Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar with the Customer Care vide Com No.2604533 with Mr. Vipul Kumar Singh regarding the delay for creation of Job Sheet. The matter was informed through e-mail on 18/07/2016. The Complainant further contacted YU Support and they told him that the Mobile handset was in their Warehouse and 8/10 days would be required for repairing.
Further case of the Complainant is that on 05/08/2016 he contacted with Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar and they informed that the Mobile set was dispatched from the Warehouse, Noida on 03/08/2016 and 3/4 days would be required to receive the same. At the same time, the Complainant contacted with Miss Shruti of YU Support and she informed that another 7 working days would be required to repair the Mobile handset. The statement of local Service Centre and YU Support was contradictory with each other and the Complainant was being harassed by the O.Ps. The Complainant received a phone call in his Mobile from Micromax enquiring from him as to whether he deposited the said defective YU Mobile handset for repair but they failed to give any status of the said Mobile. The Complainant contacted with YU Customer Care on 12/08/2016 and on that date, they informed 4/5 days would be required to dispatch the Mobile. Again, he contacted YU Support for his Mobile set and he was informed that the Mobile set was dispatched on 13/08/2016 for Cooch Behar Service Centre. The Complainant reached to Mahamaya Enterprise on 22/08/2016 and they informed him that it would be delivered within 2/3 days. Again the Complainant contacted with Mahamaya Enterprise on 27/08/2016 and he was asked to wait for another 2/3 days by one Rintu, who clarified that the Mobile set was actually dispatched for Cooch Behar on 27/08/2016. On 01/09/2016, Mahamaya Enterprise informed him that the Mobile handset was received and asked him to collect the same. The Complainant visited Mahamaya Enterprise on the same date and found that the Mobile handset was still dead and was not serviceable. Accordingly, the O.Ps made harassment to the Complainant causing mental pain and agony and he was compelled to purchase another Mobile set.
Accordingly, the Complainant was compelled to file the instant case for refund of Rs.24,999/- plus interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment & litigation cost against the O.Ps.
The O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise has contested this case by filing W/V denying all material allegations contending inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable, the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case and the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
The specific case of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant brought the Mobile handset on 24/06/2016 complaining a dead problem and the O.P. No.1 received the said handset by issuing a Job Card and sent the said handset to the Head Office for repairing. The O.P. No.1 is a well reputed businessman and the Complainant has filed the instant case with false, fabricated and baseless allegations.
Further, the case of the O.P. No.1 is that the Complainant bought the handset with multiple software/Android and latest version handset and problem might arise due to mis-handling, excessive net surfing and lack of proper knowledge. It is also alleged that the handset might be defective due to excessive charging and virus attack. The Complainant has filed the instant case with mala-fide intention.
On the basis of aforesaid fact, the O.P. No.1 prays for disposal of the case with cost.
Summon upon the O.P. No.2 i.e. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. was duly served but the O.P. No.2 did not turn up to contest this case. Accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.2.
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?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service and are they 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. Perused the entire documents in the record and also heard the argument as advanced by the parties at length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased the YU5050 mobile set through amazon.com vide Invoice No. HR-SDSE-144105041-520072 from his present address i.e. with the jurisdiction of this Forum. The said mobile set was found defective within six months from its purchase and for that reason he visited the local service centre i.e. the O.P. No.1, M/S Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of the O.P. No.2. The Complainant purchased the mobile set for his own use. As such he is a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Thus, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
The Complainant purchased the alleged mobile set through amazon.com vide proper Invoice. The service Centre (Mahamaya Enterprise) is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainant is also the ordinarily resident of Cooch Behar. Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of the O.P. No.2. Therefore, it can be called the Branch Office of the O.P. No.2. The claim amount of the Complainant is below Rs.20,00,000/-. Hence, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. This point is disposed of accordingly.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.
The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a YU5050 mobile hand set through amazon.com vide Invoice No. HR-SDSE-144105041-520072 and the said mobile hand set was found defective within six months from its purchase and for that reason he visited the authorized service centre M/S Mahamaya Enterprise on 24/06/2016 and after long persuasion, Mahamaya Enterprise received the said set and stated that it would take at least 20 days to return the same. Thereafter, on 15/07/2016 the Complainant visited the service centre (Mahamaya Enterprise) and came to know that the said mobile set was not sent for repairing for want of Job Sheet.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Job Sheet was issued on 15/07/2016 and it was stated to the Complainant that another 15 days would be required to repair the same. On 20/07/2016 the Complainant contacted to YU Support and he was told that another 8/10 days would be required for that purpose. The Complainant further contacted with Mahamaya Enterprise on 05/08/2016 and he was informed that the hand set was dispatched to wire house Noida on 03/08/2016 and 2/4 days would be required to receive the said hand set. The Complainant further contacted with YU Support and he was intimated that 7 days would be required to repaire the hand set.
It is the case of the Complainant that there was contradictory statement in between the local service centre (Mahamaya Enterprise) and YU Support. After much persuasion the said mobile set was returned on 01/09/2016 and the same was found dead and further handed over at the service centre for further management. According to the Complainant that he was being harassed by Mahamaya Enterprise as well as YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. and prayed for proper relief.
The O.P. No.1, M/S Mahamaya Enterprise denied all allegations as alleged by the Complainant. Let we see how far the Complainant has able to prove the case. This case is civilian nature. It does not require to proof beyond all reasonable doubts. It requires more preponderance of probability. From the document “Exbt. A” produced by the Complainant, it reveals to us that the Complainant purchased a YU5050 mobile hand set on 05/01/2016 at consideration price of Rs.24,999/- through amazon.com vide Invoice No. HR-SDSE-144105041-520072. It is further evident from “Exbt. U” that YU Televentures is the manufacture of YU5050 mobile hand set and Micromax Co-founder Mr. Rahul Sharma owns 99% and rest 1% is hold by the Co-founder Mr. Vikas Jain & Mr. Sumit Arora. It is also evident from “Exbt. V” that M/S Mahamaya Enterprise is the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.2 as well as Micromax Company. Therefore, it is established from the documents that the Complainant purchased a YU5050 mobile hand set at a consideration price of Rs.24,999/- from the O.P. No.2 through amazon.com. It is also established that Micromax is the owner of 99% and the O.P. No.1 is the authorized service centre.
It is not the case of the O.P that the alleged mobile set was in working condition. It reveals from the “Exbt. W” that after much persuasion, the Complainant deposited the YU5050 mobile set before the service centre namely M/S Mahamaya Enterprise on 24/06/2016 with dead problem for repairing. We also find from the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant that he was given 20 days time to get back his mobile hand set and on 15/07/2016 he visited M/S Mahamaya Enterprise and came to know that the said mobile set was not sent for repairing till that date due to non-availability of Job Sheet. We further find from the evidence on affidavit, the service centre created delay in preparing of Job Sheet and the matter of rough behavior of Mahamaya Enterprise was informed through e-mail on 18/07/2016 to the O.P. No.2.
It is further evident that the Complainant further contacted to YU Support on 26/07/2016 and he was told that 8/10 days would be required for that purpose. The Complainant further contacted on 05/08/2016 with M/S Mahamaya Enterprise and he was informed that the hand set was dispatched from the wire house on 03/08/2016 and it would take 2/4 days to receive the hand set and at the same time the Complainant contacted YU Support and talked with Miss Shruti, who informed that 7 working days would be required to repair the same. We find from the evidence on affidavit that one e-mail was forwarded to the O.P. No.2, asking them to deliver it by 15/08/2016 otherwise, the Complainant would approach to Consumer Forum. Again the Complainant visited M/S Mahamaya Enterprise on 11/08/2016 but he was not given any information and on that date he received a telephone call from 0124-3320100, asking him whether he deposited the mobile set for repairing but failed to get any status. We find from the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant that on 12/08/2016 he contacted with the YU Customer Care, who informed that 4/5 days would take to dispatch, again the Complainant took support of YU Customer on 13/08/2016 and informed him another 2/3 days to reach local service centre, Cooch Behar. We find from the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant that on 22/08/2016 he visited M/S Mahamaya Enterprise, who informed that it would require 2/3 days to deliver and on 27/08/2016 he was informed by Mahamaya Enterprise that the alleged mobile set was dispatched for Cooch Behar on 27/08/2016. We further find that one Mr. Rintu of Mahamaya Enterprise informed that the mobile set was dispatched from Cooch Behar on 13/08/2016 for Kolkata office for quality control check and from there it was returned back to Delhi. It was found from the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant that the mobile set was handed over to the Complainant on 01/09/2016 which was found defective/not in workable condition. We also find from the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant that he was being harassed by the O.P. No.1 as well as the O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No.2 has not contested the case. During argument, the O.P. No.1 has submitted additional Written Argument, which has not been stated in the Written Version. As such the O.P. No.1 has brought a new fact in the Written Argument, which cannot be acceptable at all in law.
The O.P. No.1 received the YU5050 mobile set on 24/06/2016 for repairing but the O.P. No.1 did not sent the said mobile set for repairing till 15/07/2016 and thereafter the Complainant visited M/S Mahamaya Enterprise for several times for getting information about the status of the said hand set. At the same time, the Complainant made communication with YU Support and by e-mail, the report given by the O.P. No.1 & 2 are contradictory with each other. The O.P. No.1 did nothing in connection with the mobile hand set till 15/07/2016 and remained ideal. It is latches from the end of the O.P. No.1. At the same time, we find that the O.P. No.1 did not follow up the situation in connection with the repair of the mobile hand set and the Complainant was not informed time to time about the repair of the mobile set. It is one of the latches and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1, who is duty bound performed.
Actually, the mobile hand set was sent to the manufactures on 15/07/2016 within the period of warranty and the said set was handed over to the Complainant on 01/09/2016 in defective condition/not in running condition. Therefore, the O.P. No.2 did not repair the said hand set and sent it to handed over the same to the Complainant. The conduct of the O.P. No.2 is negligent and which amounts to deficiency in service on his part and both of them i.e. the O.P. No.1 & 2 are responsible for the same.
It is evident from “Exbt. Y”/Warranty Statement that for the entire warranty period, YU or its authorized personnel will, at their discretion, without any charges and subject to clause 6 repair or replace a defective product. Repair or replacement may involve the use of same or equivalent reconditioned unit. YU will return the repaired handset or can replace with another same or equivalent handset to the customer in full working condition. All replaced faulty parts or components will become the property of YU. It is further evident from “Exbt. Y”/Warranty Statement that the details of the “ONSITE Door Step Warranty” along with “Authorised Service Locations” are available on the website www.yuplaygod.com or alternatively can be taken from our service helpline 18602-122-122. For the customers beyond the limits of the available “Door Step Service” location. It is the responsibility of the customer to bring the handset/accessory to the nearest service centre at his/her own risk and expenses.
There is no allegation against the Complainant by the O.P. No.1 & 2 that he violets the para 6 of Warranty Statement. As per Clause 9 of Warranty Statement, the O.P. No.2 is responsible for the maximum claim entertained by YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. will be subject to Maximum Retail Price of the hand set purchased or purchase price whichever is lower. There is no evidence on record that the said mobile hand set was found defective due to mis-handling by the Complainant. As such the deficiency in service of the O.P. No.1 & 2 is well established and the O.P. No.2 is either duty bound replace by a new mobile hand set of same description or to return the price of the alleged mobile.
Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The O.P. No.2 is hereby directed to refund Rs.24,999/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from 24/06/2016 till payment is made. The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant and the O.P. No.2 shall pay Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for his mental pain and agony. The O.Ps shall pay the aforesaid amount within 45 days from this day, failing which they shall pay Rs.100/- to the Complainant for each day’s delay.
Let the Mobile set be returned to the person who deposited it before this Forum.
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.
Dictated and corrected by me.
