Date of Filing: 17-08-2016 Date of Final Order: 13-09-2017
Sri.Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member
The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Nur Alam Mallik purchased one Micromax mobile hand set being Model No. D303, Imei No- 900439953656566 , date of purchasing 10/11/2015 along with Case Memo being Serial No.4629 dated 10/11/2015 by depositing Rs.3150/- from the shop of Galshi All-Rounder Mobile and Electronics, Bardawan W.B.
From the date of purchased the said mobile set of the Complainant was running properly but from the month of June 2016 the Complainant noticed that the “Charge doesn’t store” in the battery of the said mobile set. Then the Complainant contacted with Galshi All-Rounder Mobile and Electronics from where the said mobile was purchased and the Complainant was informed by the aforesaid mobile shop that to handover the mobile set to nearest service centre of Micromax, Cooch Behar. The O.P. No.1, M/S Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of the O.P. No.2. (Micromax Informatics Ltd) Accordingly, on 14/06/2016 the Complainant handed over the said mobile to the O.P, Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar and the O.P-1 issued a Job Card bearing No.4071 .The O.P No.1 received the same mobile set and point out that “CHARGE DOSE NOT STORE” After repairing the said handset, the O.P. No.1 delivered the same to the Complainant within two days. After such repair the same problem again cropped up instantly in front of the O.P-No-1 .The said defects were arisen within the warranty period and presently the O.P. No.1 again received the said mobile for repairing. In the long run, the Complainant made several contact orally and over telephone to the O.Ps for narrating the incident with the requested to replace the defective mobile or solve the said defects but all efforts were in vain.
After few days on 04/08/2016 the O.P.No-1 handed over the mobile handset to the complainant without repairing the same. (RWR-Return without repair)
Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant was suffered from mental pain & agony and financial loss also there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, adopting by the O.Ps. The Complainant entitled to get relief from the Ops.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to refund Rs. 3150/- as purchase amount and also to pay (ii) Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and financial loss and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
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 14/06/2016 complaining “Charge doesn’t store” (battery problem). 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. O.P.No-1 also stated that as per warranty policy, the micromax company offering 12 months warranty in the handset and Six months warranty on out of box accessories i.e Battery, charging Adapter, USB data cable etc. The O.P.No-1 communicate with the complainant that the battery of the alleged mobile is not under the warranty cover as the date of warranty of the battery has already been passed. The O.P. No.1 still claiming that the mobile set of the complainant is fully O.K condition but the complainant has to add a new battery in it. By knowing this fact the Complainant received back the said hand set from the O.P. No.1.The Complainant has filed the instant case with false, fabricated and baseless allegations.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
It appears that no S/R of Notice upon OP No-1 &2 was sent to the said O.Ps on proper address dated 06/09/2016 through Regd. Post with A/D but no S/R is received by this Forum. In this premises this Forum has been taken recourse of Section 28 A (3) (Proviso) and hold that the article have been deemed to be served. Thus, the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 & 3.
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 and perused the entire relevant documents of the parties in the record along with Written Version, Evidence on Affidavit, written argument filed by the Complainant and O.P. No.1.
The O.P No-1 was not present on the date fixed (24/08/2017) for hearing of argument .We heard the argument for the complainant and fixed the date for delivery of final order.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased the mobile phone from his present address i.e. with the jurisdiction of this Forum. The said mobile set was found defective within one year 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 &3. 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 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&3. Therefore, it can be called the Branch Office of the O.P. No.2&3. 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.
From the documentary evidence, it is evident to us that the complainant purchased the Mobile handset manufactured by OP No.2. The Complainant purchased the said Mobile set on 10/11/2015 but the said Mobile was found defective on 14/06/2016 within the warranty period and said complainant handed over the Mobile set to the Service Centre and the Service Centre received the same and sent it for servicing in the Office of the OP No.2. O.P-No-1 return the said mobile hand set of the complainant after receiving from the O.P-NO-2. The only problem in the alleged mobile phone was that the battery of the mobile handset was defective, the problem of the battery crop up on 14/06/2016. According to the warranty statement the battery was not in warranty period. From the job sheet deposited by the complainant it is clear that at the time of depositing the mobile handset to the O.P-NO-1, the complainant was well-known about the matter. At this time the mobile set is under the custody of the complainant and he never changed the battery of the mobile set which was necessary for the running of the set.
Accordingly we find that the complainant Nur Alam Mallik failed to establish the instant case against the OPs. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 &3. There is no order as to cost.
Let a copy of the final order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
