BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 57/2016 Filed on 05/02/2016
Dated: 15..06..2016
Complainant:
T.P. Nithin, S/o T.V. Thulaseedharan, Nithin House, Urukunnu-P.O., Thenmala Village, Punalur Taluk.
(By Adv. V.S Ajilal)
Opposite parties:
1. The Manager, Micromax Care, Smart Solutions, Safire Plaza, T.C.25/1103, IInd Floor, Near Sony World, Plamoodu Junction, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.
2. The Manager, Mobile House, Capital Tower, Opp. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 04.
This C.C having been heard on 30..05..2016, the Forum on 15..06..2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. R. SATHI, MEMBER:
The case of the complainant is that, he purchased a mobile phone for Rs. 5,900/- on 20/09/2014 from the 2nd opposite party having one year warranty. The hand set become defective on 08/06/2015 and he approached 2nd opposite party for repair. The 2nd opposite party replaced the battery and received Rs. 500/-. The 2nd opposite party also issued bill in the name of Micromax Care. But the battery charge cannot be retained even for one hour. For rectifying the above defect the same was given to the 2nd opposite party again on 08/07/2015 and 11/08/2015. The same was given back to the complainant on 08/08/2015. But on 20/08/2015 the hand set became defective and the same was handed over to the opposite party and was not given back to the complainant till date. The complainant approached the opposite party many times. This defects were occurred during the warranty period. The complainant also send advocate notice to the opposite party, but no reply was given by the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for getting the defect free mobile along with Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties accepted notice. Bu the opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and hence set exparte.
3. The complainant filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P6.
Issue:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?
4. Issues(i) & (ii): The complainant purchased one Micromax A 92 hand set from 2nd opposite party on 20/09/2014 for Rs. 5,900/- as per Ext. P1. The same is having warranty for 12 months as per Ext. P3. But the hand set became defective and on 08/06/2015, he approached 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party replaced the battery as per Ext. P6 bill for Rs. 500/- in the name of Micromax Care. After this the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party several times for repair. On 20/08/2015, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party with defective set and they accepted the same for repair as per Ext. P2. The case of the complainant is that the hand set was not returned to him even after several days. He also sent Ext. P4 Advocate notice. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for getting back the defect free handset along with compensation. Notice was ordered to opposite parties, but accepting the notice opposite parties failed to appear before Forum and contest their case. The opposite parties failed to produce any contra evidence and hence the complaint and documents produced by complainant stand unchallenged. On going through the statements and evidence produced by the opposite parties we are of opinion that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on opposite parties’ side. The opposite parties failed to handover the repaired handset entrusted to them as per Ext. P2. The complainant who purchased the handset for Rs. 5,900/- is unable to use the same. The trouble occurred many times in the warranty period and opposite parties failed to hand over the repaired hand set even after a lapse of 9 months and failed to appear before this Forum. In the affidavit complainant specifically stated that the mobile phone was handed over to the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party issued the Ext. P2 document. So the 2nd opposite party is responsible for the loss sustained to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed directing the 2nd opposite party to handover the repaired handset within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the 2nd opposite party to handover the repaired handset within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant, failing which the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay the price of the handset ie., Rs. 5,900/- as per Ext. P1 with 12% interest from the date of default till payment along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- .
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad. Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 57/2016
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : NIL
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of invoice bill dated 20/09/2014
P2 : Copy of the Job sheet of M/s. Connexion dated 20/08/2015
P3 : Copy of the Warranty statement of Micromax Informatics
P4 : Legal notice of Mobile Home Capital Tower, represented by Registered Owner dated 25/09/2015
P5 : Coy of the postal receipts dated 25/09/2015
P6 : Copy of cash bill of Micromax Care dated 08/06/2015
III. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : NIL
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
