This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 10-07-14                                in the presence of Sri I. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for complainant and of                                  Sri M. Sravan Kumar, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of defective mobile or refund of Rs.12500/- in the alternative; Rs.1000/- per day as damages from December, 2013 till replacement; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The 1^st opposite party is the importer and marketing of the mobile handsets of Mircomax Informatics Limited made in China.  The 2^nd opposite party is an authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party in Guntur.   The complainant on 11-07-13 purchased a mobile for Rs.12,500/- from the 2^nd opposite party and obtained a cash receipt.   Warranty for the mobile is for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase and for a period of six months for battery and charger.   The mobile purchased by the complainant functioned well for few months only and later troubles arose.   The said mobile stopped functioning from December, 2013.   The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party informing him about defect of the hand set.   The 2^nd opposite party checked the mobile and informed the complainant that there was a defect in the hand set and required the complainant to approach authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party in Guntur town.   It is bounden duty of the 2^nd opposite party to provide free service as the said mobile became defective and useless within four months of purchase.   The 2^nd opposite party refused to take defective handset for service.   The complainant did not find any service center in the address furnished by the 2^nd opposite party.   The complainant also informed the same to the 2^nd opposite party.   Insptie of that the 2^nd opposite party refused to receive the said mobile to rectify the problem.   The complainant had to suffer loss and damage to the tune of Rs.1000/- per day approximately on account of mal administration by the 1^st opposite party and it amounted to deficiency in service.   The opposite parties though received notice kept quite without replacing the defective set.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant purchased a mobile handset with white color of Micromax A111, with IMEI Nos.1:911307200151808, 2:911307200151816 for Rs.12,500/- on 11-07-13.   The 2^nd opposite party is only a seller of mobile handsets.   The 2^nd opposite party issued warranty card of the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.   When the complainant came with a defective mobile, the 2^nd opposite party directed him to approach authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party.   It appears that the complainant never approached any authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service.   The complainant did not suffer any loss or damage on account of defective mobile.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of complainant were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by                       not attending to repair the defective mobile?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages as claimed?

          3. To what relief?

7.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:-

          1. The complainant purchased a mobile from the 2^nd opposite party              on 11-07-13 for Rs.12,500/- (Exs.A-1, A2 and A-6).

          2. The complainant issued notice to the opposite parties on 09-01-14                   (Exs.A-3 to A-5).

          3. The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party with a                  complaint of defect in the mobile purchased by him under Ex.A-1.

8.  POINT No.1:-     Ex.A-1 disclosed that the 2^nd opposite party is an authorized dealer for Micromax mobiles and thereby became an agent of the 1^st opposite party.   In Ex.A-1 it was mentioned that purchaser himself has to approach company servicing center incase of repair(s).   Ex.A-1 did not disclose where the service centers are available.

9.      In Ex.A-2 it was mentioned “warranty will be applicable for              12 months from the date of original purchase for mobile handset, and              six months for accessories (included in the mobile device sales package) other than the media on which any software is provided, CD-ROM, memory card”.    As the complainant filed this complaint on 12-02-14 i.e., within the warranty period, the opposite parties under an obligation to get the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 repaired or replaced if repair is not possible.

10.   Ex.A-2 is the warranty card issued by the 1t opposite party for the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1.  In Ex.A-2 it was mentioned ‘the details of the service locations are available at the website www.micromaxinfo.com or alternatively can be taken from our service helpline 01144770044.   For the handsets available beyond the municipal limits of the available service centers it is the responsibility of the customer to bring the handset to the nearest service center at his/her own risk and expenses’.       

11.  The complainant is quite aware of the caution mentioned in Ex.A-1 regarding repairs.  Ex.A-2 further revealed that the complainant has to search the servicing centers on the website mentioned.   Further contention of the complainant is that service center is not available at the address furnished by the 2^nd opposite party, while the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant did not approach service center.  The evidence on behalf of both the opposite parties is self interested and oral. 

12.   During the course of arguments, the 2^nd opposite party furnished  service centers of Micromax mobile at Guntur and the complainant acknowledged it.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party regarding his liability to replace the mobile in case repair is not possible is devoid of merit because he is an agent of the 1^st opposite party i.e., manufacturer.   It is evident from the complaint and affidavit of the complainant that the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 did not reach the service center either for change of address or some other reason.

13.   The complainant purchased the mobile under Ex.A-1 and A-2 having accepted the terms and conditions.  Under those circumstances, the complainant is under an obligation to approach the service center in the 1^st instance.   It is not the case of the complainant that service center of the 1^st opposite party refused to take the mobile.   Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

 14.   POINT No.2:-       In view of above finding, in the result the complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less the one claimed.  We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

15.   POINT No. 3:-    The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the service center may refuse to repair the mobile handset covered under Ex.A-1 at this stage on account of expiry of warranty.   The said contention of the complainant is having considerable force.  Under those circumstances disposing off the complaint with certain directions to the opposite parties rather than dismissing will meet ends of justice.  We therefore answer this point accordingly.

16.    In t

 he result the complaint is disposed off with the following directions:

1. The complainant is directed to handover the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 to the 2^nd opposite party under acknowledgment within a week from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The opposite parties particularly the 2^nd opposite party is directed to get the mobile sold by him under Ex.A-1 to the service center to get it repaired free of service (as the warranty expired during the pendency of complaint)  within 15 days after receipt of the mobile from the complainant.
3. The complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint if the opposite parties particularly the 2^nd opposite party did not get the mobile purchased under Ex.A-1 repaired within the time prescribed by this Forum.
4. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 17^th day of July, 2014.

Sd/-XXX                                     Sd/-XXX                               Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:    NIL

                                                                                        Sd/-XXX       

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.