IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

Hon’bleMrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, Member

CC No. 107/2016.

Friday,  the  28^th day of July,  2017.

Petitioner                                            :        K.O. Vijayakumar,

S/o. Kesavan Nair

Thiruvonam, Kizhathadiyoor P.O.,

Near NSS Taluk Union Office,

Chethimattom,Pala – 686 574.

                                                                    (Adv. Avaneesh V.N)

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                 : 1)     Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

Reptd. By Managing Director

21/14A, Phase -11

Maraina Industrial Area,

Delhi – 110028.

                                                            2)     Customer Care Officer,

Micromax Informatics Ltd. 90B

Sector 18, Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122015.

(As per order on IA 518/16 2^nd  OP

Deleted from party array

 Dt:20.12.16)

                                                              3)  Flip Cart.Com,

WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd.

Park No. 56/18. B Block,

9^th Floor, GarvebhavipaIya,

Hosur Road, Bangalore,

PIN – 560 068.

                                                            4)     Proprietor, Micromax Care

National Electronics,

Shop No. 5, Aswathy Shopping

Complex,  Near Urban Bank,

Thodupuzha – 685584.

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

The case of the complainant  filed on 19/03/16 is as follows:

Complainant purchased a MicromaxA  311 mobile phone through the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 8499/- and it was delivered  on 03/08/15 along with Tax invoice dated 01/08/15 and warranty card.  According to the  complainant after one month, the said mobile phone become defective and it  was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party.  And 4^th opposite party was rectified same.  But after  one week the same problem again subsisted. The  complainant again approached the 4^th opposite party and they intimated that it had software complaint, and it was repaired.  But on regular intervals the problems occurred and he could not use the phone properly. Thereafter on 31/12/15 the pone was entrusted to the 4^th opposite party for repair  and after one month they intimated that the problem of the phone cannot be rectified and it was intimated to the 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party offered to replace the defective phone with a new one and it was accepted by the complainant. But 1^st opposite party handed over a phone in low range through the 4^th opposite party and it was  rejected by the complainant.  And the defective phone is in the custody of the  4^th opposite party.  Then the complainant on 08/02/16 registered a complaint to the office of the 2^nd opposite party,  but there was no response.  According to the complainant the phone is having one year warranty and the  phone is having serious defects. The act of opposite party in delivering of a defective phone and not providing proper service amounts  to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Hence this complaint filed.

After accepting the notice 1^st opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.

Complainant filed IA 518/16 for deleting the 2^nd opposite party and as per order dated 20/12/16 the 2^ndopposite party was deleted from the party array.

3^rd opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable.  According to the 3^rd opposite party the grievance of the complainant is against the 1^st opposite party, the authorized service  center.  As a retail seller, involvement of the 3^rd opposite party in the entire transaction is very limited only to selling the  products  of various manufacturers.  It is  pertinent to mention here that there has neither any shortage of supply nor any deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant never approached the 3^rd opposite party prior to filing this complaint.  After receipt of the present complaint the 3^rd opposite party contacted to the authorized service center and got know that the authorized service center will be unable to replace the  device with same model as it is out of stock, however they were willing to replace the device  with another model.  But it was  rejected by the complainant.  According to the 3^rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them and 3^rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

After accepting the notice 4^th opposite party has not cared to appear or file version.

Points for considerations are:

1)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2)       Relief and cost.

          Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and   3^rd opposite party and Ext. A1 to A3 documents from the side of the complainant.

Point No. 1

          The crux of the complainants case is that mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party supplied by the 3^rd opposite party become defective and it was entrusted with the 4^th opposite party for repair.  But the same was not returned  after repair or replaced the same  complainant produced.  Retail tax invoice/bill issued by the 3^rd opposite party and the same is marked as Ext. A1.  From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the price of the mobile is Rs. 8499/-.  Ext. A2 is the customer job sheet issued by the 4^th opposite party.  From Ext. A2 it can be seen that  the complainants mobile is entrusted to the 4^th  and  the defect of the mobile is  ‘Not on’.  Ext. A3 is the warranty card.  From Ext. A3 it can be seen that the disputed mobile is having 12 months warranty from the date purchase.  On going through the documents produced by the complainant it can be seen that  the mobile phone supplied by the opposite parties is having defects.  From Ext. A3 it can be  understood that the defect is occurred within the warranty period.  Since the product is under warranty it is the  bounden duty of the 1^st and 4^th opposite party to replace the same with a defect  free brand new one.  In our view, act of 1^st and 4^th opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

          In view  of the finding   in point No. 1, complaint is allowed. 

 In the result.

1. 1^st and 4^th opposite parties are   Ordered to refund  Rs. 8499/- the price of the  mobile with  6% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. 
2. 1^st and 4^th opposite parties are  Ordered to pay    Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.   
3. Since interest is allowed no separate compensation is ordered.

The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  28^th   day of July ,  2017.

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, PresidentSd/-

Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, MemberSd/-

Hon’bleMrs.Renu.P.Gopalan, MemberSd/-

Documents for the petitioner:

Ext. A1:       Copy of the Tax/Invoice Bill

Ext. A2:       Customer job sheet 

Ext. A3:       Copy of the warranty card.

Documents for the opposite parties

 Nil

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent