Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/1/2017

Sri G.M.Thippeswamy S/o A.D.Mahanthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax house 90B - Opp.Party(s)

Sri L.Madusudan

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03.01.2017

DISPOSED      ON:21.07.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 1/2017

 

DATED:  21^st JULY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	G.M. Thippeswamy, S/o A.D. Mahanthappa, Age:  36 Years, Civil Head Constable in  S.P. Office, R/o Kabiranandnagar, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.L.Madhusudhana, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Micromax House 90 B, Micromax Office, Head Office, Customer Relations, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015.   2. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Factory at Plot No.234, HPSIDC, Industrial Area, Tehsil Nalgar, District: Solan-173205.   3. Micromax Office, Delhi Hub, Khasara No.435, Road No.04, Laldora Extension, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.   4. Micromax Service and Care Center, Millanium Comp.Care, Vanigotra Complex, Main Road, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.B.N. Lakshminarayanarao, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.m from the date of complaint till realization and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he booked a handset Micromax Mobile through online with OP No.3.  The online price of the mobile handset is Rs.9,840/-.  In pursuance of online booking, the same was received on 02.12.2015 by paying the amount to concerned courier service.  The Micromax handset number is VP-54292 (911438702439993) with one year warranty.  After purchasing the complainant inserted the sim to activate the service and visualize the function of the mobile.  After few days, the mobile handset started hanging up and could not able to connect to the tower which is required for the dial and also receiving incoming calls.  Because of manufacturing defects, the mobile started giving problems and sometimes he could able to use what sup service for limited time.  Because of manufacturing defects, the complainant could not able to use the handset up to his satisfaction, the same has been complained to the OP No.4, the Micromax Care and Service Centre and handed over the handset to OP No.4.  On 21.07.2016 and 14.09.2016, the repair made regarding the complaint of the handset, which went in vain for the reason that, the software of the mobile failed to work as the same is due to manufacturing defects.  The complainant requested the OP No.4 to set the things right and requested to make alternative arrangement in consultation with the OP No.1 to 3.  The assurance given by the OP No.4 went in vain for the reason that, none of the OPs have not taken any care to set right the defects in the mobile,     which is a deficiency of service therefore, prayed for allowing the complaint.  The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation by way of damages to the complainant.  The cause of action for the complaint arise on 02.12.2015, the date on which the complainant has purchased the mobile and also on 21.07.2016 and 14.09.2016, when the complainant approached the OP No.4 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.      

 3.    On service of notice, Sri.B.N. Lakshminarayanarao, Advocate appeared on behalf of OPs 1 to 3 but, failed to file version to lead his case.  Inspite of service of notice, OP No.4 did not appear before this Forum, hence placed ex-parte.   

 4.    Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were got marked.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant booked Micromax Mobile handset through online with OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.9,840/-.  Complainant received the same on 02.12.2015 by paying the amount to concerned courier service as per Ex.A-1, the retail Tax Invoice for
Rs.9,840/- dated 02.12.2015, which clearly shows that, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset through online.  Ex.A-2 and 3 are the job sheets dated 21.07.2016 and 14.09.2016 issued by OP No.4, which shows the mobile hand set was given to the OP No.4 for service, the same was within the warranty period of one year. After the defects found in the mobile handset, the complainant approached the OP No.4 for get it repaired.  By that time, OP No.4 told the complainant the defects will be rectified within a short period.  After lapse of 15 days, the complainant approached OP No.4.  By that time, OP No.4 told the complainant, I have informed the defects in the mobile to the OP No.1 to 3.  The OPs have failed to rectify the defects of the handset or return the price/amount of the mobile handset to the complainant.  Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service. Because of manufacturing defects, the mobile started giving problems and sometimes he could able to use what sup service for limited time.  Because of manufacturing defects, the complainant could not able to use the handset up to his satisfaction, the same has been complained to the OP No.4, the Micromax Care and Service Centre and handed over the handset to OP No.4.  On 21.07.2016 and 14.09.2016, the repair made regarding the complaint of the handset, which went in vain for the reason that, the software of the mobile failed to work as the same is due to manufacturing defects.  The complainant requested the OP No.4 to set the things right and requested to make alternative arrangement in consultation with the OP No.1 to 3. 

9.   On hearing the contention of complainant and on perusal of the document including the affidavit, it clearly made out from the documents that, the complainant has paid Rs.9,840/- for purchasing the mobile handset from the OPs.  After using the said mobile handset for few days, some defects found in the said handset.  The complainant approached the OPs for rectifying the same.  The OPs repaired the same but, the same problems repeats again and again.  Finally the OPs have failed to rectify the defects found in the handset.  Due to the defects in the handset, the complainant has suffered mentally and financially.  Due to selling of the defective mobile handset to the complainant, the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss, which cannot be compensated by the OPs unless on payment of compensation.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to refund Rs.9,840/- i.e., the price of the Micromax Handset No.VP-54292 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  The complainant is hereby directed to handover the defective mobile handset to the OPs. 

It is further directed the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/07/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Retail Tax Invoice for Rs.9,840/- dated 02.12.2015
02	Ex.A-2 & 3:-	Job sheets dated 21.07.2016 and 14.09.2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**