Complaint filed on: 18.08.2017
Complaint Disposed on:18.01.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.65/2017
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2018
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., PGDCLP -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Srinivasa G. S/o Govindappa,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Ajjampura Village,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chikmagalur District.
(By In-person)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Micromax Informatic Ltd.,
Micromax house, 90 B
Sector-18, Gurgon-122015,
Hariyana, India.
2. The Manager,
M/s Sai Tele Communication,
No.29, 1st floor, 2nd cross,
Sampige Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore.
(OP Nos.1 & 2 -Exparte)
By Hon’ble Member Smt B.U.Geetha,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 and 2 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective mobile handset. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 and 2 to refund the amount of the handset which is paid towards purchase of the mobile handset along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has purchased Micromax YU 5510A(Black) IMEI No.911476104546122:91147610554 6121 from Op 2 through online (Flipkart) on 19.12.2016 for Rs.5,499/-. The said mobile handset was ordered by complainant’s friend Mr.Nagaraj. The said mobile handset was received by him and afterwards it was used by complainant. For the said mobile handset warranty period is one year from the date of purchase. After purchase complainant found so many defects in the mobile handset such as excess heat during the time of charging and also during the time of talking the battery is not worked properly. For that complainant approached Op 2 for rectification of the above defects in the mobile handset, for which Op 2 kept the mobile handset for repair and asked one week time for repair of the mobile handset and issued job sheet dated 29.06.2017 to the complainant. Op 2 not repair the defective mobile handset after getting one and half month time, for that complainant wrote a letter dated 05.08.2017 to Op 2 giving one week time for repair, but Op 2 neither replied to the above letter nor complied the conditions mentioned in the letter. From observing all the defects in the mobile complainant afraid for purchasing another mobile handset also, all the contacts in the mobile handset were lost, from this he suffered loss about Rs.25,000/-. Hence, Op 1 and 2 rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective handset to the complainant. Therefore, Op 1 and 2 are liable to refund the amount of the mobile handset which is paid towards purchase of the mobile handset and also prays for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 and 2 have not appeared before this Hon’ble Forum to contest the case. Hence, Op 1 and 2 placed exparte.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of Op 1 & 2 in selling defective mobile handset to the complainant?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleading, affidavit and documents produced by complainant it is proved that, complainant has purchased mobile handset through online from Op 2 for Rs.5,499/-, which is marked as Ex.P.2, complainant also produced job sheet dated 29.06.2017 issued by Op 2 which is marked as Ex.P.1. These documents clearly shows that the mobile handset is having so many defects. As per Ex.P.3 complainant wrote one letter dated 05.08.2017 to Op 2 to called upon in to repair the handset within one week, but Op 2 neither replied nor complied with the letter. Even Op 1 and 2 have not appeared before this Hon’ble Forum to defend the case. Therefore, we consider Op 1 ad 2 have rendered unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile handset to the complainant. Op 2 is being the seller of the mobile handset is responsible for refund of the amount of the mobile handset to the complainant and Op 1 and 2 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each for unfair trade practice and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP 2 is directed to refund the amount of the mobile handset to the complainant. Further Op 1 and 2 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand Rupees) and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees) each to the complainant within one month, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 18th day of January 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H.MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Job Sheet.
Ex.P.2 - Cash Receipt.
Ex.P.3 - Letter.
Ex.P.4 - Postal Receipt.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
NIL
Dated:18.01.2018 Member
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA