BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 361/2016 Filed on 25.07.2016

ORDER DATED: 01.12.2017

Complainant:

Yasir. T.A, Shivakripa, GRA 90, Geethanjali Residents Association, Kavalloor Road, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

                               (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Authorized Signatory, Micromax World AAM Communications, S02, 2^nd Floor, Lulu International Shopping Mall, Edappally, Ernakulam.

(By Adv. K.S. Vijayakumar)

2. Manager, Micromax Service Centre, M/s Connexion, T.C 202442(9), 3^rd Floor, Menathottam Chambers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

This C.C having been heard on 12.10.2017, the Forum on 01.12.2017 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a smart phone from the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 7,600/- on 16.05.2016 and the said phone became defective within one week. He approached the 2^nd opposite party on 01.06.2016 and the 2^nd opposite party after receiving the product issued job sheet.  On 02.06.2016 the 2^nd opposite party informed him that the defect of the mobile can be rectified only after sending it to the company at Delhi.  The 2^nd opposite party also denied his request for standby mobile for his use.  Even after two weeks the service centre did not give back the set, but gave him an online job sheet Number.  The complainant enquired through online job sheet number and found that the defect is being cured.  After one week on enquiry the service centre informed that the motherboard of mobile sent from Delhi became defective again.  Then the complainant asked for refund and the service centre refused, but was ready for replacement.  Even after 55 days, the opposite party informed that his replacement application is pending.  This shows the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Hence he approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 7,600/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

Opposite parties accepted notice and entered appearance.  The opposite parties failed to file version and hence set exparte. 

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Ext. P1 and P2.   Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he purchased a smart phone from the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 7,600/- on 16.05.2016 as per Ext. P1 and the said phone became defective within one week. He approached the 2^nd opposite party on 01.06.2016 as per Ext. P2 and the 2^nd opposite party after receiving the product issued job sheet.  On 02.06.2016 the 2^nd opposite party informed him that the defect of the mobile can be rectified only after sending it to the company at Delhi.  The 2^nd opposite party also denied his request for standby mobile for his use.  Even after two weeks the service centre did not give him the set, but gave him an online job sheet Number.  The complainant enquired through online job sheet number and found that the defect is being cured.  After one week on enquiry the service centre informed that the motherboard of mobile sent from Delhi became defective again.  Then the complainant asked for refund and the service centre refused, but was ready for replacement.  Even after 55 days, the opposite party informed that his replacement application is pending.  This shows the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Hence he approached this Forum for refund of Rs. 7,600/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.  Here the opposite parties were ready for refund of Rs. 7,600/-, but no amount was paid.  The complainant in his affidavit stated that the opposite party promised to refund Rs. 7,600/- but no amount was paid.  Thus on going through evidence and statements it is clear that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite parties did not contest the case of the complainant, but was ready to settle the matter.  Therefore complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 7,600/- along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant.   

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 7,600/- (Rupees Seven Thousand six Hundred only) along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within one month, failing which the amount of Rs. 7,600/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment with compensation and cost.  

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 1^st day of December 2017.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 361/2016

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of invoice dated 16.05.2016

P2     - Copy of job sheet dated 01.06.2016

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb