Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/434/2014

Assem Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Maheshinder Singh & P.S. Rana

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/434/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	15/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Assem Sharma S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, R/o H.No.987, Burail, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Micromax Informatics Limited, Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110028, through its Managing Director.

 

2.   Future Communication, SCO No.28, 1^st Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Service Manager.

 

3.   Reliance Digital Retail Limited, Shop No.247, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.178 and 178-A, Elante Mall, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its Managing Director.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA                PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Maheshinder Singh, Advocate
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased a Micromax Funbookpro P500 from Opposite Party No.3 vide Bill dated 11.05.2013 for an amount of Rs.9990/- (Annexure C-1). The said tablet had manufacturing defect from the day one and gave problems with USB data port. The problem when reported to Opposite Party No.2, it retained the Tablet for necessary repairs and returned the same on 18.10.2013. However, on checking, besides the aforesaid problem, the Complainant also found the problem of Charging Port, due to which he again deposited the Tablet with the Opposite Party No.2 on 24.10.2013. The Tablet in question was delivered to the Complainant in the second week of November, 2013. This time, on checking, the Complainant noticed that Wi Fi was not working and the Tablet was again handed over to the Opposite Party No.2 on 14.11.2013. Thereafter, on 19.12.2013, when the Tablet was delivered to him, the Complainant found a new problem in the Tablet i.e. the ROM system was fake and was not showing any product ID and the product was totally tampered with. On being approached, Opposite Party No.2 again kept the Tablet and did not inform the Complainant anything about the progress of the repair work for a whole month. It has been alleged that during Jan. 2014, when the Complainant called up the Opposite Party No.2, he was informed that the Tablet could not be repaired and was being sent to Delhi for updating its Software. The Complainant was handed over a new job sheet dated 14.01.2014. The Opposite Parties did not inform the Complainant of the status of the Tablet thereafter. In the month of March, 2014, when the Complainant contacted the Service Centre in Delhi, he was told that the Tablet had been repaired and could be taken from Opposite Party No.2. When the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 to take the delivery of the Tablet, he found that its Screen was flickering, for which the Opposite Party No.2 was demanding Rs.3000/-, as the product was now out of warranty. The Complainant agreed for the same, under protest, and a job sheet dated 11.5.2014 was issued. After few weeks the Complainant went to collect the Tablet whereby he was told that the battery was now mal-functioning and had to be changed at a cost of Rs.1000/- to which the Complainant again agreed as he had no other option. After few weeks the Complainant was informed that the Tablet was repaired and could be taken from Opposite Party No.2. On checking, the Complainant found that the USB Ports were again not functioning. When pointed out the said fault, Opposite Party No.2 told that there was problem in the mother board, upon which the Complainant demanded replacement of the Tablet as it was repeatedly developing faults from the very first day of its purchase. The Opposite Party No.2 took the Tablet and issued job sheet dated 13.6.2014. It has been alleged that now the Opposite Party No.2 refused to do anything saying that the product is out of warranty. The Opposite Party No.2 took back all the previous job cards at the time of delivery of the Tablet to the Complainant and last two job cards dated 13.5.2014 and 6.6.2014 are annexed as Annexures C-2 and C-3. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 19.08.2014 and 18.02.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has pleaded that it has only sold the product and there was no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on its part. It has been asserted that in case of any manufacturing defect in the product, it is the Manufacturer and not the Dealer/ Retailer, who would be responsible for the replacement or servicing of the product. It has been also pleaded that subsequent to the purchase of the Tablet in question the Complainant never ever contacted the answering Opposite Party alleging any defect in the product. He had always been interacting directly with the Service Centre (OP No.2). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant and Opposite Party No.3. 

 

6.     The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Micromax Funbookpro P500 from Opposite Party No.3 vide Bill dated 11.05.2013 for an amount of Rs.9990/-, with one year warranty. Annexure C-2 dated 13.5.2014 and Annexure C-3 dated 06.06.2014 are two job-sheets placed on record by the Complainant with the symptom of display contrast issue and memory issue respectively. As per the case of the Complainant, he was issued various job-sheets as on 30.08.2013, 24.10.2013, 14.11.2013, 19.12.2013, 14.01.2014 and 11.05.2014 respectively. According to the Complainant, Opposite Party No.2 () took back all the previous job-sheets at the time of delivery of the Tablet to the Complainant after repairs and therefore only last two job-sheets could be produced on record.

 

7.     The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.3 is that it being the Retailer is not liable for the warranty terms and conditions and the services to be provided to the customer.  

 

8.     We feel that as per the complaint of the Complainant the product in question which was purchased for Rs.9990/- was submitted to Opposite Party No.2 so many times for necessary repairs and this fact points out towards the poor quality of the product and of course, the service done by the Opposite Party No.2 for the rectification of the fault/defect was certainly not up to the mark. It is only Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 who could clarify the facts regarding the quality and frequent repairs of the Tablet and its return to the Complainant after proper repairs. However, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not come forward to contest the case and preferred to proceed against ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

9.     It is important to note that Opposite Party No.3 being the Seller of the Tablet in question cannot be held liable for the quality of the product or the services provided to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complaint stands dismissed against Opposite Party No.3.

 

10.     The act of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for providing the sub-standard product to the Complainant and later non-providing of the services for the defects reported in the same, clearly proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. 

 

11.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.9,990/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Micromax Funbookpro P500. 

 

[b]  To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation; 

 

12.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.5000/- as in sub-para [b] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

13.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

15^th June, 2015                          

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER