BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 13.05.2015
Date of Order : 16.11.2015
Present :-
Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 292/2015
Between
Abhilash R. Krishnan | :: | Complainant |
S/o Ramakrishnan, Putheyadath(H), Iramalloor P.O., Iramalloor Village, Kothamangalam P.O. - 686 691 | (By Adv. M.S. Ajith, Manappattu Building, Kavumpady Road, Muvattupuzha) |
And
1. Micromax Informatics Limited | :: | Opposite Parties |
Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgan – 122015 (Represented by its Chairman) 2. M/s. Aarjay Associates, I Floor Kochaneth Building, Janatha Junction, Banerji Road, Palarivattom, Ernakulam (Represented by its Managing Director) | (Absent) |
O R D E R
V.K. Beenakumari, Member
A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as follows:-
This complaint is filed by Shri Abhilash R. Krishnan who is doing Post Graduate degree in M.Sc. Computer Science at Jai Bhrath College at Arakkappadi, Kunnathunad Taluk. For the purpose of his project work on Android Development, he purchased a mobile phone valued Rs. 6365/ on 13.11.2014 from the 2nd opposite party namely M/s. Aarjay Associates, Ernakulam. The mobile phone is provided with one year warranty. Before starting the project work, the said mobile phone was examined in the presence of the professors of his department and it was found that there was an error resulted in the mobile phone and that the mobile phone is incompatible to complete the project work initiated by the complainant. Since the mobile phone is of no use to the complainant, the matter was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party. But the 2nd opposite party at the 1st instance itself refused to replace the mobile. The defective mobile phone was entrusted with the 2nd opposite party from 20.02.2015 and it was returned after repair but one perusal it was found that the defect was not cured. Therefore the mobile phone was again entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on 27.03.2015 and the phone was sent for expert check up to the 1st opposite party, Micromax Informatics Limited who are the manufacturers of the mobile phone. The defective mobile phone was returned to the complainant on 24.04.2015 without curing the defect. Again the hand set was handed over to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party rejected the request of the complainant to replace the mobile phone or to refund the price of the mobile phone. The 2nd opposite party was ready to offer its services only.. Aggrieved by the conduct of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile phone and to pay a compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- for the inconvenience suffered along with costs of proceedings.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties from this Forum and were served on the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party on 25.05.2015 and 20.05.2015 respectively. But neither the opposite parties nor their representatives appeared before us to contest the complaint against them. Therefore this complaint is disposed of exparte after hearing the complainant who appeared before us in person.
3. The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidences marked as Exts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant. The complainant has filed exparte proof affidavit also.
4. Heard the Counsel for the complainant.
5. On the above pleadings, the following issues emanated
for the consideration of this Forum :
i) Whether the complainant has proved manufacturing
defect in the mobile phone and whether he is entitled
to get refund of the price amount of Rs. 6365/- from
the opposite parties ?
ii) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay
compensation of Rs. 15,000/- as prayed for
by the complainant ?
iii) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the
costs of proceedings to the complainant ?
6, Issue No. (i) :
The complainant Shri Abhilash purchased a mobile phone manufactured by the 1st opposite party Micromax Informatics Limited from the 2nd opposite party M/s. Aarjay Associates, Ernakulam for Rs. 6365/- as evidenced by Exhibit A1 Invoice dated 13th, November, 2014 issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is doing his Post Graduate Degree Course in M.Sc. Computer Science at Jai Bharath College and the subject mobile phone was purchased for the purpose of his project work on Android Development. Having found that the mobile phone not error free, it was handed over to the 2nd opposite party on 20.02.2015 and the 2nd opposite party returned the subject mobile phone to the complainant without curing the defect therein. Therefore the mobile phone was again entrusted with 2nd opposite party as evidenced by Ext. A2 job sheet dated 27.03.2015 wherein the problem reported was mentioned as “5801 Memory MMC Rejected/Invalid”. This time the mobile phone was sent to the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer Micromax Informatics Limited for expert check up but the mobile phone was returned to the complainant on 24.04.2015 without curing the defect. Therefore the mobile phone was again handed over to the 2nd opposite party on 28.04.2015 as evidenced by Ext. A3 job sheet dated 28.04.2015 issued by the 2nd opposite party, but the mobile phone was not yet returned to the complainant. From the above facts it is evident that the subject mobile phone was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party for curing its defects several times and it was even subjected to expert check up by the 1st opposite party manufacturer during the warranty period. It is also seen that the complainant approached the opposite parties several times during the warranty period but they could not deliver the complainant with a defect-free mobile phone. At last the complainant asked for the replacement of the defective mobile phone. The opposite parties did not pay any attention to the genuine request of the complainant. We find that the complainant has eminently proved the manufacturing defect of the mobile phone purchased by him from the 2nd opposite party that too during the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile phone. No objection raised by the opposite parties against the complaint and against the evidences furnished by the complainant through his documentary evidences and the proof affidavit filed before this Forum. In the circumstances we find that the complainant has proved manufacturing defect of the subject mobile phone and that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 6365/- being the price of the mobile phone paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
7. Issue No. (ii) :
The complainant, a Post Graduate student in M.Sc. Computer Science had purchased the mobile phone on 13.11.2014 for the purpose of his project work on Android Development and even before starting the project work the complainant found error with the mobile phone and the said fact was immediately intimated to the 2nd opposite party who was ready only to give services of the mobile phone. In spite of several attempts made both by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties the defect of the mobile phone could not be rectified and much of the valuable time of a Post Graduate student was lost by running from post to pillar. Moreover the inconveniences caused to the complainant in connection with his project work inflicted severe mental agony on the complainant. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the inconveniences and mental agony suffered by him and we fix the amount of compensation at Rs. 3200/-.
8. Issue No. (iii) :
The complainant had approached the opposite parties during the warranty period to get his mobile phone corrected and at last he requested for the replacement of the mobile phones. All the attempts of the complainant find no fruitful result. After several attempts to rectify the defect of the mobile phone, the complainant asked for the replacement of the mobile phone. But the genuine request of the complainant was rejected by the opposite parties during the warranty period itself. Thereafter the complainant purchased a new mobile phone after spending Rs. 9900/- as evidenced by Exhibit A4 invoice dated 07.05.2015. Had the opposite parties replaced the defective mobile phone with a new one, the complainant would not have filed this complaint. We find that the complainant is unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to redress his genuine grievances. Therefore we find that the complainant is also entitled to get the costs of proceedings we fix it as Rs 2000/-.
9. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed and we direst as follows:-
1. The opposite parties shall refund an amount of
Rs. 6365/- being the price of the mobile phone to
the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 3200/-
towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- towards
costs.
3. The above amounts shall be paid jointly and
severally by the opposite parties.
The above Order shall be complied with, within a period of one month failing which the amount due shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President. Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
Date of Despatch of the Order :
By Post / By Hand :
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 Exhibit A2 Exhibit A3 Exhibit A4 | :: | Invoice dt. 13,11,2014 Job sheet dt. 27.03.15 Job Sheet dt. 28.04.15 Invoice dated 07.05.15 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :- Nil
Depositions :: Nil
