BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 20^th day of December 2016

Filed on : 26-02-2016

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.134/2016

Between

Aby Abraham G.K. Alias Ebi, : Complainant

S/o. K.V. George, Kokkat House, (By Adv. Vizzy George,

Kuzhiyara P.O., Marks & rights, Thaliyath Building,

Chottanikkara – 682 312. St. Benedict Road, Cochin-682 018)

And

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd., : Opposite parties

Plot No. 234, (absent)

HPSIDC Industrial Area,

Tehsil Nalagarh,

District Solan,

Pin-173 205,

Rep. by its Managing Director.

2. Micromax Service Centre,

Usnaz Tower, M.G road,

Opp. Medical Trust Hospital,

Cochin, Kerala – 682 016,

Rep. by its Manager.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Complainant's case

The complainant Shri. Abi Abraham purchased a micromax A300 (W) model smart phone worth Rs. 20,500/- from M/s. Lulu connect Edappilly on 17-07-2014. After 4 months, the complainant found difficulty in switching on the power of the phone and therefore the phone was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized service center along with the warranty card. The 2^nd opposite party took the phone and forwarded the same to the 1^st opposite party for repairs, as per the job sheet dated 26-11-2014. When contacted regarding the status, the 2^nd opposite party assured the complainant that he will be informed as and when the phone is received from the 1^st opposite party after repairs. Despite repeated requests and enquires within a period of one year, the opposite parties did not returned the phone after curing the repairs. Therefore, the complainant had to purchase a new phone for his use. The opposite party did not provide it with a temporary phone. The complainant could only use the phone purchased for Rs. 20,500/- only for 4 months. There was service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is therefore entitled to get refund of the amount with costs.

1. 3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and both the opposite parties remained absent, despite service of notices.

   4. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant filed a proof affidavit and Exbts A1 and A2 documents were marked.

   5. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused documents produced and marked in this case.

   6. The only issue for consideration is as to whether the complainant had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

   7. The issue

   8. Exbt. A1 is the invoice dated 17-07-2014 issued by M/s. Lulu connect a digital and electronic store at Ernakulam. It shows that a Micromax Mobile phone A300 with serial No. 911338900055155 was purchased by the complainant on 17-07-2014. Exbt. A2 is the job card issued to the complainant for repairing the problem of the power switch in respect of mobile handset No. 911338900055155 and that it was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant on 26-11-2014. The affidavit filed by the complainant according to the averments in the complaint would go to show that even after repeated requests the opposite parties did not give a proper explanation as to the delay in getting the phone repaired nor made any alternate arrangements by providing him with a temporary phone. The opposite party did not contest the matter and therefore the allegation of the complainant stands proved through the affidavit and Exbts. A1 and A2. We therefore make a finding that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service as against the complainant as alleged.

   9. In the result, the complaint stands allowed by passing an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 20500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 26-11-2014 till date of realization to the complainant.

ii. The opposite parties are also jointly and severally declared liable to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant both within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the payment of cost is delayed beyond a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order the complainant would be entitled to claim interest on costs as well at the rate of Rs. 18% p.a.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of February 2016

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Copy of invoice dated 17-07-2014

A2 : Copy of job sheet dt. 26-11-2014

Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By hand: