IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 30^th day of  May, 2015.

Filed on 10..11..2014

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

C.C.No.288/2014

between

Complainant:-                                                                   Opposite parties:-

Sri.Manoj                                                                          1.   M/s.Micromax Informatics Ltd. 

S/o Mangalan                                                                          21/14A,  Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area

Muttathuparambu                                                                   New Delhi - 110 028.

Kuthirapanthy Ward                                                               (By Adv.K.S.Baiju)

Thiruvambady P.O.

Alappuzha.                                                                        2.   M/s.Getronics

                                                                                                Karthika Building (1^st floor)

                                                                                                      Opp. SDV School

                                                                                                      Alappuzha            

                                                                                                      Kerala, PIN – 688 013.

                                                                                          3.   Gulf Land

                                                                                                Gift and Duty Paid Shop

                                                                                                Zero Junction

                                                                                                Mullackal, Alappuzha.

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

The facts of the complainant is as follows: 

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone on 22.01.2014 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- which is having 1 year warranty.  During the warranty period said phone became defective, the 2^nd opposite party and as per their direction the complainant entrusted the phone to the 3^rd opposite party as per their direction he entrusted the phone to the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1^st opposite party.     2^nd opposite party agreed to repair the phone within 20 days.  But even after one month also the same was not repaired.  Thereafter the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party many times, but the same was not repaired and returned to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant informed to the 1^st opposite party about the matter and they sought a week’s time and agreed to replace the phone.  But on 04.11.2014 the 3^rd opposite party returned the same mobile phone which was entrusted to them for repairing, but the same day evening itself the phone showing the same defect which was persisted earlier.  On 05.11.2014 the complainant approached then 2^nd opposite party and informed about the complaint. The 2^nd opposite party repaired the same and returned it to the complainant but the defect was not rectified.  Again, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and entrusted the phone for repairing and the 2^nd opposite party issued a job sheet but the phone has not been replaced or returned so far.  The complainant who is a taxi driver by profession sustained much inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss due to act of the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone with compensation and cost. 

2.  Notices against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were served and they appeared before the Forum, but not any version.  3^rd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and hence the 3^rd opposite party was set ex parte.

3.  On 16.05.2015 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties expressed their willingness to settle the matter by replacing the defective phone with a new one along with a compensation of Rs.1,500/-.  But it was not complied.  So on 18.05.2015 the matter was heard.

4.  The complainant produced 3 documents, Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dtd. 22.01.2014.  Ext.A2 is the warranty statement and  Ext.A3 is the is the job sheet dtd.06.11.2014.  No evidence is adduced from the side of the opposite parties.

    5.  Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following

issues for consideration:

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

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?

            6. Issues 1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from the 3^rd opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 22.01.2014 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- which is having 1 year warranty.  During the warranty period the said phone became defective and entrusted the same to the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party.  Even though, the mobile phone was repaired twice the same complaint persisted and finally on 06.11.2014 the complainant entrusted the same to the 2^nd opposite party for repairing or for replacing. Instead of repeated requests the opposite parties failed to replace or repair it properly.  Thus the complaint before us is seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone along with compensation and cost.

          7.  Admittedly the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 22.01.2014 for an amount of Rs.12,000/- which is having 1 year warranty.  During the warranty period the said phone became defective the 2^nd opposite party repaired it many times, but the same defect persisted.  According to the complainant time and again he had approached the 2^nd opposite party to get the defects of the mobile phone rectified.  It was further stated that the opposite parties could not rectify the defects due to the inherent manufacturing defect. Therefore he is entitled to get refund of the phone of the hand set.  The document produced would show that the case of the complainant is genuine.  Evidently the complainant could not use the mobile phone from 16.09.2014 on which the same has not replaced by the opposite parties even though the defect arose within the warranty period.  Therefore the opposite parties 1^st and 2^nd have committed deficiency in service.  On a perusal of the documents and the submission made by the complainant we can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

                  In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) to the complainant along with 10% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.  The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced

in Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2015.

                                                                        Sd/-  Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

                                                                        Sd/-  Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

                                                            Sd/-  Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext.A1:  Retail invoice dtd. 22.01.2014. 

Ext.A2:  Warranty statement.

Ext.A3:  Copy of job sheet dtd.06.11.2014.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  Nil

-//True copy//-

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

Typed by: Pg//

Compd.By: Pr/-