Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/93

Smt. Kanika Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. & 3 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Choudhury, Mrs.R.Shil.

21 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  93 of 2014

    1. Smt. Kanika Debnath,
         D/o- Matilal Debnath,
         Krishnanagar,
         Agartala, West Tripura.         .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

         1.  Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
          21/14 A, Phase-II,
Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi-110028.

2. Customer Care Officer,
Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
90 B, Sector-18, 
Gurgaon-122015
Haryana.

3. Sarala Electronics,
160, HGB Road, Melarmath,
Agartala, West Tripura.
 
4. M/S Surajits Mobile Care,
    Hawkers Corner, 1st Floor, Room No. 34, 
    HGB Road, Agartala, 
    West Tripura.            ...........Opposite Parties.
            
                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    :  Sri Sampad Choudhury and
                   Smt. Rinku Shil,
                   Advocates.        
                           
For the O.P. No. 1        : None appeared.

For the O.Ps No. 3 & 4    : Sri Debaranjan Choudhury,
                  Sri Dipak Deb,
                  Sri Sujoy Sarkar and
                  Sri Krishna Gopal Bhowmik,
                  Advocates.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  21.11.15

J U D G M E N T
            This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Kanika Debnath, D/O- Motilal Debnath of Krishnanagar, Agartala against the O.Ps, namely Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21 /A, Phase 2, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi and 3 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the pat of the O.Ps.

2.            The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased one Tablet (Fun Book Mini) of Micromax Company of Model No. P 410 from the O.P. No.3, Sarala Electronics, at Rs.9,400/- on 14.11.13. After 7/8 days of purchase the mobile set started giving troubles. If the mobile set was not used or remained in standby mode for 3/4 hours, automatically it  would hang up. Immediately the complainant brought this fact to the notice of the authorized service centre of the Micromax company on 24.11.13. The service engineer of O.P. No.4 asked her to leave the mobile set with them for check-up. On 03.12.13 the O.P. No.4 returned the mobile set to the complainant being repaired. Having received the mobile set, it was noticed that the problem for which the mobile set was handed over to the O.P. No.4 still persisted. So, she again placed the mobile set with the O.P. No.4  on 20.01.14 to rectify the defect. She was told by the service engineer of O.P. No.4 that they needed one month's time to put the set in order. After continuous persuasion she received the mobile set from the O.P. No.4 on 01.03.14. At the time of delivery of the mobile set to her she was advised by the service engineer of O.P. No.4 to use the mobile set with full charge of the battery. After giving full charge of battery when she switched the mobile set on, it was detected that its touch system was not working properly. Being frustrated, she again produced the mobile set before the O.P. No.4 on 26.09.14 to remove the defect and till date it is lying with them. According to the complainant, the mobile set suffered from inherent manufacturing defect otherwise within a span of less than one year of purchase it would not have given numerous troubles. Thus, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service.

3.            The O.P. No.1, Micromax Informatics Ltd., the manufacturer of the mobile set, did not contest the case despite  receipt of notice. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against him.

4.            The O.P. No.3, Sarala Electronics, the distributor of the mobile set, and O.P. No.4, M/S Surajits Mobile Care, authorized service centre of the Micromax company, contested the case by filing joint written objection stating, interalia, that the the complainant placed the mobile set in question with O.P. No.4 on 24.11.13, 20.01.14 and lastly on 26.09.14 with numerous problems. In every occasion, the defect of the mobile set as pointed out by the complainant was removed with her fullest satisfaction. They are of the view that the mobile set might have gone out of order due to its mishandling by the user. It is alleged by the O.Ps that lastly on 26.09.14 the mobile set was brought to them by the complainant not for any mechanical fault but for issuance of a certificate to the effect that the Tablet was not repairable and it was suffering from manufacturing defect so as to extract money from the manufacturer. Now, the mobile set is lying with the O.P. No.4 and it is fully ready for use. It is alleged that the complainant is intentionally avoiding to take back the set to grab money from the company. It is denied that they were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

5.            In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents;
    Exhibit 1- Cash Memo dated 14.11.13,
    Exhibit 2- Job sheet dated 26.09.14,
    Exhibit 3- Warranty Statement.

6.            On the other hand, one Sri Surajit Dey, the proprietor  of O.P. No.4, has examined himself as O.P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the Delivery Challan dated 25.11.14 as Exhibit- A.

        Findings:
7.            The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

8.            We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

9.            There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant purchased one Tablet (Fun Book Mini) of Micromax company of Model No- P 410 from the O.P. No.3 at Rs.9,400/- on 14.11.13.  From the job sheets produced by the complainant it is apparent that within a period of little more than 10 months of purchase of the mobile set it started giving numerous troubles and on different occasions, like as, 24.11.13, 20.01.14 and 26.09.14 she placed the mobile set with the service centre of the company(O.P. No.4) to rectify the defects. The O.Ps No.3 and 4, in their joint written objection, have also admitted the fact of production of the mobile set before the O.P. No.4 by the complainant on the above mentioned dates. It is the plea of the O.Ps No.3 and 4 that on every occasion the defect of the mobile set was cured with fullest satisfaction of the complainant. According to them, the complainant left the mobile set with them lastly on 26.09.14 for no fault of the mobile set. She just wanted a certificate from the O.P. No.4 to the effect that the mobile set was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect so as to extract money from the manufacturer. 

10.            It is seen from the pleading as well as evidence of the complainant that after 7/8 days of purchase the mobile set  started giving numerous troubles and she placed the mobile set with the authorized service centre of the company on different occasions. Though the mobile set was repaired from time to time by the authorized service centre of the company, yet it was short lived. In our opinion, if the mobile set was not suffering from major mechanical defect, it would not have gone out of order within 7/8 days of purchase. It appears that on every occasion when the mobile set was placed with the service centre of the company(O.P. No.4), job sheets were issued by them indicating the defect. If the mobile set was not suffering from any defect, certainly the O.P. No.4 would not have received the mobile set and issued job sheets. Considering the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the mobile set in question was certainly suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, for which the set failed to give uninterrupted the service to the complainant. That being so, the manufacturer of the mobile set and the authorized service centre of the company, who failed to repair the mobile set to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant, are jointly and severally guilty of negligence. 

10.                In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.Ps No.1 and 4 are directed to jointly and severally replace the defective mobile set to the complainant with a new one of the same model or refund the price of the mobile set within 45 days from today. They are also directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for causing mental  anxiety  and harassment to her by them with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) as cost of litigation. In case of failure in making the aforesaid payment within the prescribed time, the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum till the payment is made in full. 
   
                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.