Date of Filing: 28.01.2011
Date of Order: 30.04.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 189 OF 2011
Poornachandra H.V.
# 24, Sai Nilaya, 4th Cross
4th Main, KSRTC Layout
Chikkallasandra, Bangalore 560 061 Complainant
V/S
1. Micromax India Limited
28, 20th “I” Cross, Ejipura
Viveknagar Post, Bangalore 560 047
Rep. by Regional Service Manager
2. M/s. Srinivasa Mobile Care
No. 16/2, 9th Main, 3rd Block
Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011
Rep. by Manager
3. The Proprietor
Maharaja Telecom
# 1586/16, 80 feet Road
SBM Colony, BSK I Stage
2nd Block, Bangalore 560 050 Opposite Parties
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
The complainant has filed this complaint seeking refund of cost of mobile purchased by him from the opposite parties.
The facts of the case are that complainant had purchased Micromax Mobile Model X600 on August 6, 2010 from opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 4,850/- with one year warranty. On December 10, 2010 mobile stopped working. On the same day he went to the dealer. They directed him to the local authorised service centre opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 received the mobile for service and informed him that touch screen is out of stock and it will take minimum 4 days, to the maximum of 7 days. On December 18, 2010 he called the service centre to know the status. They told to contact on December 20, 2010. They told that it will take two more days. The complainant submitted that he had been frustrated with the service centre people. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service. He had sent personal notice to the opposite party detailing all the facts. The complainant has lost faith in the service and product of Micromax. Therefore, he requested that opposite party be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,850/- and to grant compensation towards time and amount spent and for making STD calls to the call centre at New Delhi.
2. After admitting the complaint notice issued to opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 appeared in person. Opposite party No. 3 though served with notice has not appeared before this forum. Therefore, placed as ex-parte. Opposite party No. 2 being service centre also represents opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 filed version stating that they are authorised service partner for Micromax mobiles appointed by M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Delhi. They have admitted that they received mobile from the complainant for service with the problem of touch screen not working under warranty and a job card No. C10121080 dated 10.12.2010 issued. They replaced the touch screen on 12.01.2011 which was received from their head office in the first week of January 2011 and after repairs they informed the complainant to come and collect the handset.
3. Arguments are heard.
4. Perused the complaint, documents and the defence version.
5. The complainant who is in person contested the case and submitted that he lost faith and confidence with the Micromax Co. Ltd. The mobile purchased found defective and did not work within warranty period. Therefore, he had given same to the service centre. He has explained the facts in detail in his complaint. He had handed over the set to opposite party No. 2 on 10th December 2010 under service job sheet. The said document is produced. Opposite party No. 2 informed that it would take minimum 4 days and maximum of 7 days time to repair the set. But, unfortunately the opposite parties have not maintained the promise and commitment. The complainant has made several phone calls and visited the opposite party centre. But there was no proper response from the opposite party service centre. Therefore, the complainant was frustrated with the service rendered by the opposite parties. The complainant submitted that he had already purchased another mobile set and he has not in need of the mobile set any more which was given to the service centre. Therefore, requested that opposite parties be directed to refund the cost of the mobile. There is considerable force and merit in the submissions made by the complainant. The mobile found defective within warranty period. The opposite party should have immediately replaced the defective mobile on receiving the complaint from the customer. The opposite parties made the complainant to wait indefinitely and no proper response was given to complainant. It is not the proper way to treat the customers. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. The complainant herein being a ‘consumer’ under the Act his interests requires to be protected by passing orders for refund of the amount paid by him for purchasing the mobile. The opposite party No. 3 is the dealer though served with notice has not appeared before this forum. This shows an utter negligence and disregard to the customer’s grievance. The opposite party No. 3 has not shown any reason as to why he has not appeared before this forum even though served with notice. By remaining absent opposite party No. 3 had accepted or admitted the case of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally responsible to refund the amount of Rs. 4,850/- the cost of the mobile to the complainant. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 4,850/- the cost of the mobile set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order till payment / realisation.
7. The opposite parties are directed to send amount as ordered above to the complainant directly by way of D.D. / cheque with intimation to this forum.
8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
