Orissa

Cuttak

CC/150/2016

Sheeram Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M Mohanty

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C No.150/2016

                               

Shreeram Mohanty,

At:Haripur Road,New Colony,

PO:Buxibazar,PS:Purighat,

Dist:Cuttack represented through his mother guardian

Smt. Biswarupa Mohanty.                                                                 …Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

       

      

1.                Micromax Co. Ltd.,Micromax Head Office,

Micromax House,90-B,Sector-18,

Gurgaon-122015.

 

2.                Authorized Seravice Centre,Mobile Care,

Micromax,At:Big Bazar,PO:Buxibazar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.

 

3.                Authorized Dealer,

Maharana Communication,

At:Haripur Road,Dolamundai,

Town/Dist:Cuttaack-753001.

 

4.               Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

21/14A.,Phase-II,

Naraina Industgrial Area,Delhi-110028.                                        … Opp. Parties.

               

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     18.11.2016

Date of Order:   28.11.2019

 

For the complainant:          Ms. Madhumita Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For O.Ps.1,2 & 3:                     None

For the O.P No.4:                 Mr. G.B.Acharya,Adv. & Associates.

 

 

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

 

                The complainant has filed this case alleging therein deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and seeking appropriate relief in terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. The factual matrix of the complainant’s  case reveals that the complainant  purchased a Micromax mobile hand set from O.P No.3 on 8.10.15 for Rs.3000/-.  Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the cash memo No.857 dt.8.10.15 towards purchase of the hand set.  It is stated that after some days some manufacturing defect developed in the said hand set and the complainant approached the O.P.2 time and again to rectify such defect.  The latter also changed the battery of the hand set so that it could work properly but in vain.  The complainant having been deprived of getting the benefit of such hand set was put to serious mental agony and harassment.  Then he again handed over the hand set to O.P.2 for immediate rectification but no document was given to the complainant in token of receipt of such hand set.  The matter did not improve in any manner.  Again on 8.8.16 the complainant deposited that mobile hand set requesting him for rectification and no job card was issued to the complainant for this purpose still then.  The O.P.2 did not oblige to rectify the defects.  Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice through his advocate on 19.9.16 to the O.Ps to rectify such defects.  The copy of the said legal notice has been duly served on the O.Ps as r revealed from the copy of the tracking report filed in this case. Those tracking reports have marked as Annexure-2 series.  It is pertinent to note that when the hand set was handed over to O.P.2 it was covered by the warranty.  In the meantime more than one month has already passed but none of the O.Ps came out with any solution for redressal of the grievances of the complainant.  This is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Lastly the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the O.P with a prayer to direct the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the mobile i.e Rs.3000/- together with 10% interest which comes to Rs.300/-, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation and Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to him by the O.Ps.

2. The O.Ps.1,2 & 3 have been set exparte.  It is only O.P.4 who is the manufacturer has contested the case by filing written version.

It is contended that the case is not maintainable both in fact and law.There is no cause of action to file the case.There is also no material to prove that the O.Ps are liable in any manner for having rendered deficient service.

The O.P has traversed all the material averments in the complaint.More specifically it is contended that no intimation has been given to O.P.4 in this regard to prove that he is liable for any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.That apart it is strongly averred that to prove manufacturing defect in the hand set, bald version of the complainant is not sufficient unsupported by any expert report.Unfortunately it is wanting in this case.Therefore onus that lies on the complainant to prove the case remains un-discharged.

It is further stated that O.P.4 is a renowned mobile manufacturing company and its products are genuine. It still bears the business goodwill all over India for the products..Any complaint which is genuine is immediately taken note of and attended promptly for Redressal of the grievances of the consumers..

The entire case is stated to be baseless and merits no consideration.As such it is prayed that the case may be dismissed in limini against O.P No.4.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and for O.P.4.  Gone through the pleadings of the case together with the annexures affixed to it.

The sole controversy between the parties is that the O.Ps are found to have rendered deficient service to the complainant by not rectifying the manufacturing defect appearing in the mobile hand set purchased from O.P.3 by the complainant despite repeated approaches.The complainant has averred that he has approached O.P.3, the authorized service centre and also handed over the defective mobile hand set to him more than twice on different occasions for repair.The O.P.4 is the manufacturing company and according to complainant no action was taken by O.P.4 to rectify the manufacturing defects at request of the complainant.The learned advocate for the O.P.4 has fairly submitted that no intimation or message was ever sent to O.P.4 in this regard at any point of time.O.P.4 as such was deprived of any knowledge about any defect in the hand set of the complainant.There is absolutely no documentary evidence adduced in this case to prove that O.P.4 and other O.Ps have been duly intimated to redress the grievances of the complainant as alleged.

There is also no documentary proof that the complainant has ever handed over the defective hand set to O.P.2 for repair.No job card has been filed in this case to the effect. The only stand taken by the complainant that neither a job card nor any document was given by O.P.2 to the complainant for such purpose, does not stand to reason.

Law is well settled that manufacturing defect in a particular item cannot be satisfactorily proved merely on the basis of oral statement of the parties unsupported by the report from an expert.That report of the expert is also very much wanting in this case for the reasons best known to the complainant.It is also equally settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand or fall on his own leg and he cannot take the advantage of the weakness of the O.P to prove his case.Merely because a legal notice was sent to the O.Ps, calling upon them to redress the grievances of the complainant vide Annexure-2 series, would not suffice to held that the O.Ps had the prior knowledge about the manufacturing defect in the hand set purchased from O.P.3.In this back drop and in absence of anything to the contrary it cannot but be held that the complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in any manner.Hence ordered;

                                                                                ORDER

The case be and the same is dismissed exparte against O.Ps1,2 & 3 and on contest against O.P.4.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 28^th day of November,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                    President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                        (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)