IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/89/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
01.06.17 08.06.17 18.02.2020
Complainant: Atin Kumar Ghosh
S/O- Swapan Kumar Ghosh,
240/2, Bishnupur Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, Micromax Service Centre
B.B.Sen Road, PO & PS - Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
2. Proprietor, Computech Business Service
6, Krishnanath Road,
Ground Floor Modern Hotel,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
3. Manager, Micromax India Mobiles
90B Micromax House,
Sector-18,
Gurgaon-122015.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : In person
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Soumitra Roy
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri. Saugata Biswas.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3 : None.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
One Atin Kumar Ghosh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Micromax Service Centre and two others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased one Micromax Canvas 5 (E481) Mobile set from the OP No.2. After some days the Mobile set was found defective as it turned hot at the time of charging and there was a problem of software. On 16.02.2017 the Complainant went to the OP No.1 for repair and the OP No.1 informed him that the warranty period was over. Ultimately, the Complainant applied before the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Regional Office, Murshidabad and at the time of mediation only a representative of OP No.1 was present who assured to repair the Mobile set but the problem was not solved and ultimately, the case has been filed praying for refund of purchase price of Rs.11,999/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version on 01.08.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has not filed any report to establish that the Mobile set is defective. It is the specific case of the Ops that the Mobile set of the Complainant was repaired and there is no proof to establish that the Mobile set was defective. The OPs also intend to repair the Mobile set in case of necessity. The OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services of the OPs for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3&4
The Complainant submits that the OPs have deficiency in service as the Mobile set is defective . He submits that one Representative of Micromax informatics Ltd appeared before this Forum and offered him to replace his old mobile by a new Micromax Model No. N12 but he is not willing to accept the new Mobile set being Micromax Model No. N 12 as he has no need of any Mobile set. It is contended that the Complainant has no faith on Micromax Company and the OPs may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the Mobile set amounting Rs.11,999/-.
In reply, the representative of the OPs submits that the Complainant was present on 21.01.2020 before this Forum when he was agreed to accept a new Mobile set Micromax Model N12 in place of the old one but the Complainant has refused to accept the new Micromax Model N12 (sealed packed) IMEI No. 911653500303767 today, the reason best known to him. It is urged that the OPs are still willing to replace the old Micromax Canvas 5 (E481) Mobile set by giving a new Micromax Model N12 which is a higher model. It is urged that the OPs have no deficiency in service. He prays for passing appropriate order.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the father of the Complainant Swapan Kumar Ghosh purchased one Micromax Canvas 5 Mobile set from the OP No.2 on payment of Rs.11,999/- against tax invoice No. 0192 dated 01.07.16 and he went to the OP No.2 for servicing on 17.02.17 i.e. after lapse of more than six months. The OP No.2 had informed the Complainant that the warranty period of parts of the Mobile set was six months and it is the version of the OPs that the OP No.2 repaired the Mobile set more than once but it is the case of the Complainant that the repairs were not done up to the specification of the Complainant. However, the Complainant applied before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Murshidabad RO and the case was dropped as there was no solution. The OPs ultimately intended to replace the old Micromax E/481 Mobile by giving a new Micromax Model N12 but the Complainant is not agreeable to receive the same and he wants to get back the cost price of the Mobile set. The complainant went to the service Centre after lapse of more than six months and he has not filed any copy of document to establish that his mobile set was not repaired properly. The Complainant has not even applied for examination of the mobile set by an expert to ascertain whether it had any defect. Moreover, the Micromax Informatics Ltd has offered to replace the old set by a new N12 as Micomax has stopped manufacturing Model Canvas 5.
Considering the submission of both sides and the materials on record, specially the fact that the OPs intend to replace the old Canvas 5(E481) by a new Micromax Model N12, We find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service against the OPs but considering the fact of offer by the Micromax Informatics Ltd we are of the considered view that the OPs may be directed to open the offer to replace the old Micromax Canvas 5(E481) by a new Micromax Model N12 for a period of one month. The Complainant may accept the Offer of Micromax Informatics Ltd within a period of one month, if he so desires.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 01.06.2017 and admitted on 08.06.2017 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the Complaint Case succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No CC/89/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs without cost.
The OPs are directed to open the offer to replace the old Micromax Canvas 5(E481) by a new Micromax Model N12 for a period of one month.
The Complainant may accept the Offer of Micromax Informatics Ltd within a period of one month, if he so desires.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
