Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/42/2016

V.Venkatesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Inbormatics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.Thajan

25 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.02.2016

                                                               Order pronounced on:  25.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 25^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.42/2016

V.Venkatesan,

S/o. Veerasamy,

No.4/13, North Jeganathan Nagar Avenue,

2^nd Street, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

Rep by its Managing Director,

‘Micromax House’

No.90-B, Sector 18,

Gurgaon, New Delhi – 110 005.

 

2.M/s. DRB Enterprises,

Rep by its Manager,

AC 141, 1^st Floor, 2^nd Avenue,

Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/s.R.Thanjan, E.Kandhan

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                  : Complaint against 1^st opposite   party    

                                                                        is dismissed on 24.05.2017

 

Counsel for  2^nd opposite party                   : M/s.Laxmi Raj Rathnam,

                                                                      M.Viswanathn, S.Kumaran,

                                                                      M.Manikandan, B.Raghuraman

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has made an on-line purchase through Amazon.in of a Micromax mobile phone model, Micromax Canvas Power A96 (Black) – XOOOAB24YJ)–IMEI- 911353350568334 for a sum of Rs.5,564/- on 26.01.2015.  Nearly after 11 months, the said handset had problems, particularly in the power button and hence the complainant had approached 2^nd opposite party on 03.10.2015, the dealer of the 1^st opposite party and handed over the mobile set for correcting the same on the basis of warranty given at the time of purchase of the said mobile.  The complainant waited for a month’s time, but the same was not corrected for want of spares and handed over the mobile set to the complainant. At the time of handing over the said mobile set, the complainant verified the set and to his shock and surprise the display was not functioning added to the earlier problem of power button, due to the mistake of 2^nd opposite party and recklessness and when the complainant questioned about such problems, there was no proper response from the 2^nd opposite party. However, the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to surrender the mobile again for proper repairs of the said hand-set. Accordingly the complainant had handed over the said set to the 2^nd opposite party for which they issued a receipt on 02.11.2015 for rectification of the same. Even after lapse of considerable time, the 2^nd opposite party on behalf of the 1^st opposite party never rectified the problems existed in the said mobile set within the period of warranty nor handed over the set to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice on 28.12.2015 to both opposite parties for their negligent act and deficiency in service. After receipt of the said legal notice both 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties neither replied nor responded for the same. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had approached the 2^nd opposite party for servicing the said mobile phone in “dead condition” citing issuance in switching on the power of it and was not able to switch on the same on 03.10.2015. The technician of the 2^nd opposite party explained the complainant that the problem arose because of rough handling of the equipment and also clearly explained one month time required for rectifying the same, which is due to unavailability of spares and ordering of spares for the concerned model.  The complainant agreed to the time on 31.10.2015.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that they were yet to receive the  required spare parts which were ordered and also intimated the complainant that more time required  for rectifying the defect. But the complainant visited the 2^nd opposite party and chose to take back the “dead mobile phone” without doing any service. The job sheet for the same was closed on 31.10.2015.  On  02.11.2015, the complainant again approached the 2^nd  opposite party and had given the same mobile  phone and requested the 2^nd opposite party to rectify two different problems. i.e., the display touch screen and physical key buttons were not working. This time the said mobile phone was brought to the 2^nd opposite party in switched on  condition. Since the phone was still in the warranty period, the 2^nd opposite party accepted to repair the said phone and created a new job sheet for it. Even  after several calls and reminders, the complainant did not visit the 2^nd opposite party for collecting the rectified mobile phone. The issue of the complainant was solved by 2^nd opposite party properly and further the complainant’s request for a new mobile phone as a replacement for the old mobile phone was also accepted by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant had filed this petition with false averments. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          03. The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party  had come forward with their respective proof  affidavit. Ex.A1  to Ex.A5 were marked on the  side of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party   has not filed any supporting documents.

          04. The written arguments and oral arguments of the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party were filed. The oral arguments of  2^nd opposite party was heard.

05. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

06. POINT NO :1        

                    The complainant had purchased a Micromax mobile phone model, Micromax Canvas Power A96 (Black)–XOOOAB24YJ)–IMEI- 911353350568334  for a sum of Rs.5,564/- through on line purchase from opposite parties  on 26.01.2015 under Ex.A1 invoice. Nearly after 11 months,  the handset had  problem  in the power button and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party  on 03.10.2015 and handed over the mobile set for  repair  on basis of the existing warranty. Job sheet for the same is Ex.A2. It could not be corrected for a long duration due to the non-availability of spare parts and the mobile was returned to the complainant. The problem had again arisen and display was also not functioning after its return from the 2^nd opposite party. At the request of the 2^nd opposite party the hand set was again handed over to the 2^nd opposite party  for rectifying the defect Ex.A4 is the receipt for the same.  This time also the repairs could not be rectified for a considerable time   with in its warranty period. The 2^nd opposite party   had not handed over the handset and it is still lying with the 2^nd  opposite party as per the contention of the complainant. Under Ex.A5 dated 28.12.2015  a legal notice was issued by the complainant through his counsel. It was neither replied nor responded. Hence the complainant had preferred this complaint.

07. 2^nd opposite party admits the fact of  handing over the mobile phone for servicing and  its return without servicing due to non-availability of spare parts and handing over the mobile for the second time for service and its availability with the 2^nd opposite party after rectification. As per 2^nd opposite party’s version the issue of the complainant was solved and offer for a new mobile phone as a replacement  for the old mobile phone  was accepted by the complainant. However there is no proof for the rectification done by the 2^nd opposite party and also an offer made to the complainant for replacement of the mobile phone. Therefore it amounts to deficiency in service. 

08. POINT NO.2:

                              The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party as per the complaint. It is an admitted fact that 2^nd opposite party is in possession of the old mobile and had decided to give a replacement also. The complaint is filed in the year 2016 but neither the complainant nor the 2^nd opposite party have put forth the availability of the model of the mobile phone in issue at present. Hence it is fit to direct the 2^nd opposite party to return the cost of the mobile phone Rs.5,564/- to the complainant. The complainant would have suffered mental agony at least for some time due to the failure on the part of 2^nd opposite party who  has not returned the mobile after rectification but there is no proof filed by the complainant for the alleged loss in running the travel business . Under these circumstances it would be appropriate to order Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and for deficiency in service. Therefore the 2^nd  opposite party is directed to return the amount of Rs.5,564/- being the cost of the mobile phone and  also to pay Rs.5,000/-for mental agony and deficiency in service besides the cost of Rs.3,000/-. Complaint against the 1^st opposite party has  already been dismissed for non-prosecution  on 24.05.2017 itself.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,564/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred and sixty four only) towards the cost of the mobile phone to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 /-(Rupees five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service  besides a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for costs.  

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of the payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th  day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.01.2015          Copy of Cash Receipt issued on behalf of the opposite parties to the complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 03.10.2015          The 2^nd opposite party’s job sheet to the complainant

 

Ex.A3 dated 31.10.2015          Dispatch slip issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 02.11.2015          The 2^nd opposite party’s job sheet to the complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 28.12.2015          Complainant’s legal notice to the opposite parties

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                                … NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT