BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1577/2014

DATED ON THIS THE 10^th February 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint filed for a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.17,000/- with interest and cost of the proceedings.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that on 19.04.2014, the complainant purchased Micromax Mobile worth of Rs.10,000/-. In a short time, the said mobile developed problem and become unusable.  Then it was entrusted to opposite parties for necessary repairs.  The opposite party neither effected the repairs nor return the mobile.  Hence, this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs.
3.     In spite of service of notice, opposite party No.1 absent, placed exparte.  Opposite party No.2. i.e. dealer alone appeared and contested the complaint by filing the following version:- It is admitted that on 19.04.2014, the complainant has purchased mobile worth of Rs.10,000/- from opposite party No.2.  This opposite party is not aware of any transaction between complainant and opposite party No.1 relating to handing over of set for repair or non-return of the same.  This opposite party is only a dealer who has sold the mobile and it is the service centre who is answerable for the claim made by the complainant.  Accordingly, opposite party No.2 has sought for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.     On the above contention, this matter is posted for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, he has filed his affidavit evidence.  Further evidence closed.  Likewise, representative of opposite party No.2 also filed his affidavit evidence.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that he entrusted the mobile for repairs to opposite parties which was not returned to him, thereby opposite parties committed deficiency in service, as such complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- To establish that he has purchased the mobile from opposite party No.2, complainant has purchased the mobile under cash bill dated 19.04.2014 which reflects that the complainant has purchased Micromax mobile phone worth of Rs.10,000/-.  2^nd document is the acknowledgement issued by opposite party No.1 for having received the mobile for repair, it is the job sheet by opposite party No.1 relating to problem in battery with COP.  Opposite party No.1 did not return the mobile.  Thereby, complainant was forced to sent a letter to opposite party No.1 on 23.08.2014, which was served on opposite party No.1.  Even then opposite party No.1 neither returned mobile nor paid cost of the mobile.  Thereby, opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency in service.  So far as opposite party No.2 is concerned, it is only a dealer and it has not accepted the mobile phone for repair.  Thereby, there cannot be any deficiency in service or there cannot be any liability on the part of opposite party No.2.  As such, this Forum finds that opposite party No.1 alone is liable to pay cost of mobile i.e. Rs.10,000/- with interest and also compensation of Rs.3,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.  Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

8. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite party No.1 alone is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- being the cost of the mobile, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. Opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- being the cost of mobile, Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant in 30 days from the date of this order.  Failing which, the said sum of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 10.11.2014 till payment.
3.  In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party No.1 undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
4. Complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.2.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 10^th February 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER