DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;BHADRAK
……………………
C.D.Case No.75 of 2014
Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty,
S/o: Late Muralidhar Mohanty
At: Hatiapada,
PO: Khaparapada, Via: Arnapal
Dist:Bhadrak
………………………….Complainant
(Vrs.)
1. M/s. New Excel World
At:Girls High School Road
Bhadrak-756100
At/PO/Dist:Bhadrak
2. Chairman
Micromax House
C/0- 13, Sector-18
Gurgaon-122015
3. Manorama Communication
Prop.Dhabal Panda
At: Nuabazar, Bhadrak
………………………..Opp.Parties
Order No.17 dt.29.04.2015:
Deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps is the grievance of the Complainant.
The case of the Complainant in nutshell is that, he purchased Micromax Mobile handset model Canvas-114 from O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.11,200/- for his son namely Sri Asutosh Mohanty on 30.12.2013. After 4 months of its purchase, on & off switch of the mobile handset found defective. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of O.P.No.3 who repaired the set twice but the said defect persisted in the set. The O.P.No.3 ultimately refused to repair the handset on warranty basis, rather insisted to repair the set on payment basis (out warranty).The son of the Complainant is residing outside Bhadrak and he is unable to contact him for such problem in the handset. As such, the Complainant suffered mental agony. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case on 29.04.2014 praying to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.11,200/- and for payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
O.P.No.1 in his written version admitted that the Complainant had purchased Micro Max Mobile set having Model Canvas 114 at a cost of Rs.11,200/- on 30.12.2013. Since the day of purchase the above named consumer has never visited the shop of the O.P. nor has he made any complaint before the O.P. with regard to any defects of the said mobile set. It is learnt from M/s. Manorama Communication that the Complainant has never visited to his service centre regarding the complaint of said set. When the Complainant has never visited the shop nor repaired the mobile hand set the question of mental torture and harassment does not arise. Hence, prayed the case be dismissed.
O.P.No.2 in his written version stated that the Complainant purchased the alleged mobile but he has not personally visited the authorized service centre of the company nor the alleged mobile has been entry in register of the service centre. When the alleged mobile has not entered into the service centre and in that respect the Complainant has not filed a single scrap of paper to the alleged allegation and in absence of such necessary documents, the court could not be able to conclusion that the alleged mobile has been touchingly defect within the warranty period. Further, the authorized service centre though is a necessary party to this case, he has not been made party to this case and in absence of such necessary party and absence of valid papers the complainant is not entitle any claim and for which the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
O.P.No.3, M/s. Manorama Communication, Prop: Dhabal Panda, Nuabazar, Bhadrak was added as party vide order No.5 dt.26.11.2014. O.P.No.3 refused to receive notice for which he has been set ex-parte as per order dt.11.12.2014.
We have heard both sides and perused the documents filed by the parties. It is the case of the Complainant that he had purchased Micromax Mobile handset model Canvas-114 from O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs.11,200/- on 30.12.2013. After 4 months of its purchase, on & off switch of the mobile handset found defective. This fact was brought to the notice of the O.P.No.3 who repaired twice but could not remove the defect. Finally, the O.P.NO.3 refused to repair the set on warranty basis rather insisted to repair the set on payment basis (out warranty) to which the Complainant declined. O.P.No.1 admitted to have sold the mobile hand set to Complainant but denied to have received any complaint regarding defectiveness of the mobile handset. Similarly, O.P.No.2 stated that the Complainant has not personally visited the authorized service centre of the company nor the alleged mobile has been entry in register of the service centre. O.P.No.2 further stated that the authorized service centre though is a necessary party to this case, he has not been made party to this case and in absence of such necessary party and absence of valid papers the complainant is not entitle any claim.
The Complainant has filed warranty card/warranty statement of Micromax mobile hand set issued by O.P.No.1 to the Complainant containing model name, product serial number, date of purchase and affidavit dt.13.04.2015 in support of his case. Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 30.12.2013 from O.P.No.1 for a consideration amount of Rs.11,200/-. While going through the terms & conditions of warranty card, it is found at Sl.No.2 that the warranty will be applicable for twelve (12) months from the date of original purchase for mobile hand set and six(6) months for accessories(included in the mobile device sales package) other than the media on which any software is provided, CD-ROM, memory card. Customer should present the PROOF OF PURCHASE/Invoice for claiming this warranty. On the contrary the O.P.No.2 has filed one Xerox copy of Micromax warranty terms & conditions belonging M/s. P.N.Service, Ph.06784-240113. On perusal of the said Xerox copy we are convinced that is meant for serving centre regarding repair of the mobile hand set on out-warranty products. Since the mobile handset in question is within warranty period, the terms & conditions of Micromax filed by O.P.No.2 is not applicable to the present case. The O.P.No.1 in his written version categorically stated that the Complainant has never visited to his shop nor made any complaint before him with regard to any defect. The O.P.No.1 also came to know from M/s.Manorama Communication, Prop.Dhabala Panda of Nayabazar,Bhadrak, the authorized service centre of Micrcomax Company, Bhadrak that the Complainant has not visited his service centre to remove the defect found in the mobile handset. Admittedly, M/s.Manorama Communication was added as O.P.No.3 vide order No.5 dt.26.11.2014 after filing of written version by O.P.No.1. But the O.P.No.3 refused to receive the notice sent by this Forum for the reason best known to him. Ultimately, the O.P.No.3 has been set exparte vide order 11.12.2014. However, O.Ps 1 & 2 denied to have received any complaint with regard to defectiveness of the mobile hand set nor the mobile has been entered in the service centre. On perusal of affidavit filed by the Complainant it is revealed that set was repaired by O.P.No.3 twice in the month of August and September,2014 and he could not remove the defect found in the handset. Further, the O.P.No.3 lastly refused to repair the set on warranty basis and insisted to repair on payment basis. During course of hearing the Complainant submitted that that now-a-days complaint is lodged through online by the Service Centre. So no document is available with him. Had the O.P.No.3 appeared and filed his show cause the matter would have been different. When the O.P.No.3-Service Centre refused to receive notice and remained silent, we have no other alternative than to accept the version of Complainant on the basis of affidavit sworn by him. So we are convinced that the O.Ps 1, 2 & 3 failed to render necessary service after sale of the mobile handset to the Complainant within the warranty period. Had the O.Ps removed the defect found within warranty period and satisfied the consumer removing the inherent manufacturing defect, he would not have purchased another mobile handset for his son. Therefore, we are convinced that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service and liable to compensate the Complainant. Accordingly, it is ordered:
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest against O.Ps 1 & 2 and exparte against O.P.No.3. The O.Ps 1,2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs.11,200/- to Complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum over the cost of the mobile handset from the date of purchase till its realization. At the same time, the Complainant is directed to return the Mobile handset either to O.P.No.1 or to O.P.No.3 with proper acknowledgement.
Member President
