Jitendra Behera filed a consumer case on 24 Mar 2015 against Micro Max House in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/76/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Mar 2015.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 24thday of March ,2015.
C.C.Case No.76 of 2014
Jitendra Behera,
At. Khandahata,P.O.Rachhipur
Dist.Jajpur. Mob No.9861618102
………… ……....Complainant. .
(Versus)
1.Micro max house 90B,Sector-18,Gurugon,Pin.122015,Tel.91-124-4811000
2. M/S Mobile station Infront of Canara Bank street,Jajpur Road;
Jajpur.Tel.06726-222310
3. Papu Mobile,Das market complex,Duburi Kalinganagar
Dist.Jajpur.Mob No.9776029412
…………………………Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Self
For the Opp.Party No.1 None
For the Opp.Party No.2 and 3 Self.
Date of order : 24. 03. 2015.
MISS SMITA RAY , LADY MEMBER .
Deficiency in service is the grievance of the petitioner.
The facts, as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition shortly is that the petitioner had purchased a mobile on dt.10.07.14 from O.P no.3 Papu mobile Das market complex ,Duburi Kalinga nagar,Jajpur. After using 20 days the mobile became out of order. The complainant has given the mobile for repairing to O.P no.2 (Micromax service center, Jajpur Road bearing job No.*E010145 -0714-11203146 dt.31.07.14. The service center has given assurance to repair mobile within 7 days. But service center did not repaired the mobile in the fixed date . The complainant again and again met O.P no.2 but they did not repair the same. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Micromax Customer Care on dt.19.08.14 bearing complain No.1908148095. Customer care had given assurance to repair the mobile within 20 days but they did not repair the mobile set. As a result the complainant suffered a lot in duty. So the complainant filed the present dispute before this Fora and prayed to give a new mobile set in place of old set and award compensation of Rs.4,000/- for financial loss.
There are three nos. of O.Ps. in the present dispute . The O.P no.1 has not appeared and did not choose to file written version. Hence, he has been set exparte vide order dt. 28.02.15. .
After noticed the O.P.no.2 appeared and filed his written version. In the written version dt.20.12.14 he has stated that the delay in petitioner’s mobile repairment is due to late dispatch of mobile parts from the company . But now the mobile is ready. Company has send on line message to the petitioner to take delivery of the mobile. The O.P no.2 also stated that if the complainant agreed and court permit to examine the mobile he will submit the mobile before this Fora.
The O.P No.3 appeared and filed his written version. In the written version he has stated that the complainant purchased a mobile on dt.10.07.14 . His model No.A09 / Micromax whose bill No.4523, but the complainant after purchasing the mobile it became out of order. The petitioner has given the mobile to repair in service center. Hence, the O.P no.1 and 2 will be held responsible to repair the mobile. The O.P no.3 also stated that they sale the mobile if the mobile will go out of order they will not held responsible.
On the date of hearing the complainant and O.P no.2 and 3 are present. The O.P no.2 produced the repaired mobile set before the Fora . After verification the complainant received the mobile set with full satisfaction . We heard the argument from both the sides.
After perusal of the record along with documents in details and affidavit dt 09.01.2015 filed from the side of the petitioner it is observed that after filing of the present dispute O.P no.2 (service center) dispatch the message to the complainant that the mobile set already repaired. But the affidavit filed from the side of the petitioner presumed that the repairment of mobile set was not completed. Lastly on dt.02.02.15 the O.P no.2 filed a memo stating to produce the mobile set before this Fora . But delay in service for six months is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the O.P no 1 and 2 since it is cristal clear that the O.P no.2 has repaired the mobile after filing of the present dispute.
Owing to the above narrated circumstances, when the law is well settled on the above point. We are inclined to hold that the O.P. no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the above delay.
O R D E R
In the result the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. no.1 and 2 and dismissed against O.P no.3 . The O.P.no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand )towards compensation to the complainant within one month after receipt of this order .
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24th day of March,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar ) (Miss Smita Ray )
President. Lady Member .
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty) (Miss Smita Ray)
Member. Lady Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.