Orissa

Cuttak

CC/12/2016

Miss Mamata Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

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

C.C No.12/2016

 

Miss Mamata Mishra,

D/O: Mr. Mahadev Mishra,                                                                                                                        

Firing Bazar,P.O:Tala Telengabazar,

P.S:Purighat,Dist:Cuttack.                                                                   … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. Micromax Company Ltd.,(Regd. Office)

Micormax Informatics Ltd. (Head office),

Micromax House, 906,Sector-18,

Gurgaon-12295.

 

2. M/s. Mobile Care,Cuttack

First Floor,Jhoon Jhoonwala Market Complex,

Buxibazar, beside post office,

Cuttack,Odisha.

At present 2^nd floor,Big Bazar,

Market Complex,Dargha Bazar,Cuttack..

 

3. R.K.Mobile,Dargha Bazar,

Cuttack-1.                                                                                     … Opp. Parties.

 

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

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:   01.02.2016

Date of Order: 17.08.2016

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                                                   The complainant has lodged this complaint before this Forum U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (C.P.Act in short) alleging therein deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. Case of the complainant stated in brief was that the O.P.1 is a registered company of Micromax Cell phones and the O.P.2 & 3 are authorized servicing centre and sale unit of the said phone situated at Dargha Bazar,Cuttack.  On 6.9.15 the complainant purchased a Micromax D-4 mobile for Rs.8000/- from O.P No.3 vide money receipt (Annex-1).  Immediately after such purchase she found that the said cell phone ceased to function.  She approached the O.P.3 on 7.6.15 and 12.09.2015 and subsequently on the advice of O.P.3 she went to O.P.2 for repair.  The O.P.2 on examination of the cell phone noticed that the battery was damaged and there was a crack noticed on the back cover of the said battery.  The cell phone was handed over to the O.P.2 on 30.10.15 for necessary repair.  Annex-2 is the receipt to this effect for repair of the cell phone.  About 15 days thereafter when the complainant approached O.P.2 about the repair of the cell phone, the latter did not respond.
2. On 2.12.15 she sent lawyer’s notice to O.Ps 2 & 3 along with A/D which have been marked as Annex-3 series but there was no response.  On 23.12.15 the complainant sent an advocate’s notice to O.P.1.  On 11.1.16 the Consumer Advice Centre of the said company at Bhubaneswar intimated the complainant that the O.P.1 had sent E.Mail to her to take necessary steps in the matter.  On 13.1.16 the O.P.3 intimated her over phone that the O.P.1 has taken steps for replacement of the old cell phone by a new one.  Subsequently in spite of repeated approaches by the complainant to O.P.2, the defective cell phone was not replaced.  She has also made E.Mail contact with O.P.1 for this purpose but it did not yield any result.
3. The cause of action in this case arose on 6.9.15 in the City of Cuttack and considering the value of the goods and services, this complaint has been filed before this Forum for redressal.
4. It is prayed that the necessary direction be issued to the O.Ps to replace or exchange the old defective cell phone by a good and new one and they also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses in the interest of justice.
5. All three O.Ps entered appearance but only O.P.1 filed the written version of its case.  Interalia it is stated by O.P.1 that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file the case.  Material averments in the complaint have been denied.
6. It is further contended that the O.P.1 is a renowned mobile manufacturing company and products of the company are all genuine.  It has a good will for its product all over the country and the company is not interested to lose its good will at any cost.  It is further stated that there was some defect  noticed in the battery of the cell phone which is repairable and accordingly it was repaired by O.P.2 at the request of the complainant but she refused to accept the same and insisted on replacement of the old cell phone by a new one.
7. It is also the contention of O.P.1 that the defect if any in the battery of the cell phone is not a manufacturing defect which would make O.P.1 liable.  There is also no expert report available to this effect.  As such onus squarely lies on the complainant to prove that the cell phone purchased by her suffered from any manufacturing defect.  Interalia it is also stated that there is no allegation about the deficiency in service provided by the O.P.1 or other O.Ps as alleged by the complainant.  Under the circumstances above, the O.P.1 prays that the complaint be dismissed against all the O.Ps being devoid of merit.
8. We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and O.Ps.  We have also gone through the documents filed in this case.
9. The point for determination is whether there was any manufacturing defect in the Micromax cell phone purchased by the complainant from O.P.3 and whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant.

 

10. During course of argument, the O.P.1 has filed a petition dt.3.8.16 stating therein that some settlement has been reached between the complainant and the O.Ps in the mean time and the complainant has agreed to receive Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps towards cost of the said mobile as well as  compensation towards full and final satisfaction of her claim and in such an event the complainant has to return the accessories supplied to her at the time of purchase.  The Learned Advocate for the complainant has received the copy of such petition without any objection.  It is also fairly submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant in the court that the case may be disposed of in the light of the petition filed by the O.P.1.

 

                                                                                ORDER

 

In view of the discussion above, the prayer of the complainant is allowed.  The O.P.1 is directed to pay Rs.8000/- towards cost of the Micromax Cell phone together with Rs.1000/- for compensation and Rs.1000/- for legal expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order subject to condition that she would return the accessories supplied to her at the time of purchase of the said phone.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 17^th day of August, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                                         President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                              (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                 Member.

 

                                                                                                                                               

 

                                                                                                        (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

            Member(W)