DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.131/2017

Sh. Gaurav Rajoriya

C-84, Third Floor, DuggalColony,

Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Perfect Solutions

          E-3 Lower Ground Floor,

          Kalkaji New Delhi-110019

2.      Micromax Infomatics Ltd.

          Micromax House 90B, Sector-18,

          Gurgaon-1222015                                         ….Opposite Parties  

                                             Date of Institution  :         10.04.2017       Date of Order            :         07.01.2020

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. In the present case, the complainant purchased a Micromax YU YUREKA mobile phone on 17.04.2015 on paying the consideration of Rs.8,999/-.
   1. It is stated by the complainant  that the phone’s display screen broke somewhere around 13.03.2017 and he gave the said phone for repair to the authorized service centre of Micromax Informatics (OP No.2) that is M/s Perfect Solutions  (OP No.1).
   2. After 10 days when the complainant went to collect the repaired mobile phone he was shocked to see that the IMEI number printed on the back of the phone was scratched. It is submitted by the complainant that the said number was very clearly visible in his phone and his phone had problem of broken display only. But on receiving the phone from OP-1, complainant noticed that the phone given to him was not even turning on. It is stated that the complainant was informed that the problems noticed by the complainant were occurring due to heating and later on he was told that it was because of acetone used during the repair.  The complainant avers that the phone returned by the service centre was not the one which he had deposited with OP-1 for repairs. He complained to OP-1 regarding the same but he was not heard.
   3.  Aggrieved on receiving a different phone from OP-1 the complainant approached this Forum with the prayer that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8999/- which is the cost of the phone in question and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards the physical strain, mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. OP No.1 was duly served as per order dated 28/07/2017 but OP No.1 chose not to contest the present case.
3. OP No.2 resisted the complaint inter-alia stating that under separate business arrangement between OP No.2 and its service centre OP No.2 is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect/deficiency in service caused by its service centre. It is next submitted the prescribed period of warranty of mobile handset had already expired when it was given to OP No.1 for repairs. Further it is stated that OP No.2 did not receive any service request for repair of complainant’s phone on his toll-free number.
4. It is next submitted that as a goodwill gesture OP No.2 is ready and willing to repair the mobile handset and/or replace the existing mobile handset of the complainant with a new handset of the same model and/or value on depositing the existing mobile handset, in case the defect in the said handset was caused due to any kind of negligence on behalf of OP-2 which cannot be cured. It is further submitted that as the phone was out of warranty and the complainant had already used it for two years hence there cannot be any manufacturing defect as such, therefore the present complaint should be dismissed out rightly with cost.
5. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. Affidavit of Sh. Arshad Shakeel, AR has been filed on behalf of OP No.2. Written arguments have been filed by complainant and OP No.2.
6. Submissions made by the complainant are heard and record is perused carefully.
7. Complainant has filed job sheet by M/s Perfect Solutions dated 14/03.2017,  E-mail written to Customer Care Micromax info.com dated 25/03/17 and Invoice of the phone dated 17/04/2015 which we mark as Mark A, Mark B and Mark C for the purpose of proper identification.
8. It is complainant’s case that the complainant gave the phone to OP No.1, the authorized service centre of OP No. 2 for repairs as the display screen of the phone had broken but his phone was otherwise working fine. However, the complainant’s phone was replaced by a dead phone by the service centre. While receiving the phone from the service centre it was noticed by the complainant that the IMEI numbers printed on the back of the phone given to him were scratched/smudged, which was not the case with the complainant’s phone. The representative of the service centre at the back of the job sheet has mentioned “IMEI sticker is fading once engineer tried to replace new one CCD Holder in AO5510”. The complainant was willing to pay the approximate cost of repairs i.e. Rs.2786/- mentioned in the job sheet that is why he left his phone for repairs with OP-1.
9. We are of the opinion that OP No.2 is shirking of his responsibility by stating that the relationship between OP No.1 and OP No.2 is principal to principal basis, each party is responsible for his own action and OP No.2 cannot be fastened with any liability for the acts of commission or omission of OP No.1. However, OP No.2 has failed to adduce credible evidence regarding the same. No agreement of such kind has been placed on record which would show that the relationship between OP No.1 and OP No.2 was that of principal to principal basis. Hence, this forum is of the opinion that the complainant had handed over his mobile handset to OP No.1 for repairs whereas what he received back, was a different phone which was not functioning at all. Further as per the job sheet dated 14.03.2017 the problem reported was ‘display mechanically broken’ but on receiving the handset the complainant  saw that the IMEI number had been smudged/changed which was admitted by the representative of OP No.1. Hence, this Forum is of the opinion that the OP No.1 and OP No.2 both are liable for deficiency in service.  
10. From the discussion above, we allow the complaint and direct OP-1 and OP No.2 to pay jointly and severally the depreciated cost of the phone to the complainant which is estimated at Rs.6,000/- with 6% interest per annum to the complainant from 14.03.2017 the date when the phone was given for repairs till realization within a period of two months from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Failing which OP-1 and OP No.2 shall be liable to pay the above said amount with 8% interest per annum from 14.03.2017 the date when the phone was given for repairs till realization. Additionally OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.3500/- towards mental agony and harassment.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 07.01.2020.