BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.319-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 19^th August 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to opposite parties to replace the Micromax Unit-2, A-106 model mobile handset and also to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and defect in goods with other reliefs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased mobile handset from opposite party No.3 on 03.02.2015 for Rs.6,600/-.  The said handset working for a period of one month.  Later, it has developed problems in battery backup, speaker problem, external SD card and Internal SD card problem.  Then, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 on 14.03.2015.  Opposite party No.3 directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2 who is the service centre of Micromax Mobile set.  Accordingly, it was handed over to opposite party No.2 on 14.03.2015 for repair.  On 07.04.2015, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, then he came to know from opposite party No.2 that handset was not working and directed the complainant to approach opposite party No.3. The set was within the warranty period, the opposite party No.3 has issued a new mobile handset to the complainant of the same company and the same has been mentioned in the earlier bill issued to the complainant.  The new mobile handset was in good condition and the same was in running in a good manner, but all of a sudden on 08.04.2015, the said new mobile handset was also not working under the same problem of earlier one.  In this connection, the complainant also approached the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on several occasions, but they did not comply with the same.  Due to this, complainant being a business men suffered loss to extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Then, the legal notice was issued on 10.04.2015 and 20.04.2015 calling upon the other side to change mobile handset and to pay the damages.  Hence, this complaint filed.
3.     All the opposite parties served with notice, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 absent, placed exparte.  Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the following version.  The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and filed with bad intention to make unlawful gain.  The allegations with regard to existence of the same defect as noticed in the first device is not correct.  The complainant has made such allegation without placing any evidence to establish that his statement made in the complaint and affidavit evidence is true and correct.  In the absence of cogent technical evidence to establish that the 2^nd device also suffers from same problem as noticed in the 1^st device has to be discarded for want of documentary evidence.  On 14.03.2015, opposite party No.2 generated the job sheet pertaining to 1^st device and advised the complainant to approach the dealer for new set.  Whenever there is any problem in the handset, and the customer approaches the service centre, definitely there will be job sheet when product is delivered for repair.  The complainant has produced only one job sheet dated 14.03.2015 and no other subsequent job sheet relating to 2^nd device produced.  Thereby, the complainant has not placed job sheet pertaining to 2^nd device.  The complainant has not stated anything about the job sheet relating to 2^nd device dated 08.04.2015.  Thereby, 2^nd handset was not handed over by the complainant to the service centre.  Mere, attendance to the service center is not enough but the complainant has to place job sheet to show that the hand set was handed over the service centre for repair.  In the absence of such material fact, complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, opposite party No.1 sought for dismissal of the complaint.  
4.     On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, complainant himself has filed affidavit evidence and closed his further evidence.  On behalf of opposite party No.1, Regional Service Manager has filed the affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that opposite parties failed to attend the defects in the 2^nd new mobile handset, thereby, there is deficiency in service and he is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- During evidence, complainant has filed affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  It is not in dispute between the parties that on 03.02.2015, the complainant has purchased mobile handset i.e. Micromax  Unit-2 for Rs.6,600/- and there is bill to evidence the same produced by the complainant and it is further evidence that the said mobile handset purchased by him suffers from defects about one month later.  Thereby, on 14.03.2015, he has handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.2, which is the service centre.  After some days i.e. on 07.04.2015 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 informed him that the mobile handset was not in working condition and directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No.3.  Accordingly, complainant approached opposite party No.3 and explained defects with the mobile handset,  since it was within the period of warranty.  Opposite party No.3 has issued a new mobile handset to the complainant of the same features.  Even as the said new mobile handset was in good condition, but all of a sudden it has developed problem. On 08.04.2015 in this connection, he has approached opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on several occasions, but opposite party Nos.2 and 3 did not comply with the same.  Thereby, the complainant being a businessmen suffered loss to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- for want of mobile.  Hence, this complainant has sought for an order in his favour.
8.    The complainant also produced job sheet dated 14.03.2015  relating to the first mobile handset. For having handed over the new mobile handset, the opposite party No.3 has made a note on tax invoice.  Thereby, the complainant received the 2^nd new mobile handset but the complainant has not placed any material to establish that he has handed over the 2^nd new mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 which was with defect to the service centre or to the dealer, he has approached opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on several occasions.  In the absence of any document to show that the mobile handset was handed over to opposite party Nos.2 and 3, except alleging the same in the complaint and in the affidavit evidence since job card dated 08.04.2015 is not produced by the complainant that the 2^nd new mobile handset was handed over to the service centre.  In the absence of such material document, it cannot be held that the complainant has handed over the 2^nd new mobile handset on 08.04.2015 either to opposite party No.2 or to opposite party No.3.  In the circumstances, the claim made by the complainant appears to be doubtful and he has not established his case as alleged in the complaint or in the affidavit evidence.  Thereby, the contention raised by the other side, i.e. opposite party No.1 relating to non-production of the product for repair is to be accepted.  In the circumstances, the complainant has failed to establish the point No.1.   Accordingly, point No.1 answered in the negative.
9.    Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and the complaint is to be dismissed. Hence,  the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 19^h August 2016)