OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.37/16
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Nirlipta Kr.Borah -Complainant
S/O Mr.Jugal Ch.Borah
Residence of House No.4,C/o Dharmeswar Medhi,
Bye lane-5, Indira Nagar,
P.O.Beltola,P.O.Basistha,Dist.-Kamrup(M),Assam.
-vs-
1) Micromax Informatics Ltd., , - Opp.parties
Registered office at 21/14A, Phase-II,
Naraina Industrial Area , Delhi-110028
2) M/S Arcadindia
Silver Square uilding,G.S.road,
Christian Basti, Guwahati-781005.
3) M/S Umed Electrovision
Ehsan Trade Centre,Shop No.3,
Shaida Market, S.S.Road, Lakhtakia,
Guwahati-1.
Appearance-
Learned advocates Mr.G.Tamuli appears for the complainant
Date of argument- 28.07.2017
Date of judgment- 16.08.2017
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Nirlipta Kr.Borah against Micromax Informatic Ltd., Delhi, M/S Arcadindia, Guwahati, and M/S Umed Electrovision was admitted on 16.6.16 and notices were served on all the opp.parties , but the case against Opp.Party No.3 is directed to proceed on exparte vide our order dtd.19.10.16 and the case against Opp.Party No.1 & 2 also is directed to proceed on exparte vide our order dtd. 26.4.17. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 29.6.17. Thereafter, on 28.7.17, Ld advocate Mr.G.Tamuli filed his written argument and also forwarded his oral argument. Today, we deliver our judgment which is given below.
2) The brief of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased the Micromax Canvas FIRE 3 (Model No. A096) Sl No.V042121501600059664 mobile from Umed Electrovision, Lakhtokia, Guwahati on 27.5.15 at a consideration of Rs.6,200/-, but after three months of its purchase, he found that the battery of it was draining very fastly and then he immediately approach Opp.Party No.2 and they checked up the mobile and found the battery in good condition , but Opp.Party No.2 updated the mobile operating system KIKKAT to LOLIPOP; but again the mobile stopped functioning on 15.3.16 and he then deposited the mobile to Opp.Party No.2 and Opp.Party No.2 accepted it vide job-sheet dated 15.3.16 and asked him to come after 15 days as it requires 15 day for repairing; and when again the Opp.Party No.2 after 15 days, Opp.Party No.2 told him that the mobile is not ready and so he is come by getting prior information in Mobile No. 98540 38486 and he frequently rang the Opp.Party No.2 only said mobile number to know about the mobile and Opp.Party No.2 enquired the jobsheet number which was not given by them. On 30.3.16 he again went to Opp.Party No.2 to enquire about the mobile, but found the whole shop was gutted in darkness and he then made a phone call to the customer care of Micromax Informatic Ltd., and their representative answered that they were verify the matter and handed over the handset within a week. He received one call in his mobile from a unknown number (9864407386) on 19.4.16 at 2-49p.m.. On 1.4.16 while he again approach Opp.Party No.2 to get back the mobile, then Opp.Party No.2 told him that the battery is damage, and he has to buy new battery and that is why mobile was not repaired and Opp.Party No.2 also agreed to give some discount in the battery to be purchased. His mobile battery was draining fastly due to defect of the mobile and Opp.Party No.2 did not repair the mobile , rather asked him to purchase one battery from them at a discount rate. Such act of opp.party for selling a defective mobile and refusing to repair defective mobile within warranty period amounts to deficiency of service towards him and also guilty of selling defective item to him and therefore, he prays for directing the opp.parties to replace the mobile with a new one and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for loss of business and Rs.20,000/- as compensation of causing harassment and as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2) We have perused the evidence of the complainant . It is found from Ex.1 that the complainant had purchased one Micromax 8096-91137351080554 mobile hand-set from Opp.Party No.3 (M/S Umed Electrovision, Guwahati) on 27.5.15 at a consideration of Rs.6,200/-. From Ex.2 (Manual jobsheet) , it is found that on 15.3.2016, the complainant deposited the said hand-set to Opp.Party No.2 (M/S Arcadindeindia) which is a customer care unit of Opp.Party No.1 for repairing the said mobile, where it is written that the problem is software update/ To UGH problem. This documents fully supports the version of the complainant that after three months of purchasing the said mobile, he found the battery of the mobile was draining fastly and that is why he deposited the mobile to Opp.Party No.2 for repairing.
The complainant in his evidence further states that , the said mobile was deposited to Opp.Party No.2 for repairing on 15.3.2016, Opp.Party No.2 asked him to take information about the repair after fifteen days and then Opp.Party No.2 also requested him to come after getting information about the repairing through the mobile number 9854038486, which is written in the jobsheet , but he did not find Opp.Party No.2 over mobile and he then written to Opp.Party No.2 on 30.3.16, but he found the shop of Opp.Party No.2 was closed and gutted in darkness, and then he directly contacted Micromax Informatics Ltd. Opp.Party No.1 through the customer care mobile number, and they assured him that they will verify the matter and hand over the mobile to him within a week, but the mobile was not handed over to him; and then he again approached Opp.Party No.2 on 1.4.2006 to collect the mobile , but Opp.Party No.2 told him that the battery was damaged and he has to buy another battery and he can buy the battery from them in discount rate. This statement of the complainant is believable as he states the same supported by affidavit. After believing his statement, we have found that the hand-set of the complainant, which he had purchased from Opp.Party No.3, showed problems in drain of the charge within warranty period said mobile and that mobile was draining fastly and he accordingly approached Opp.Party No.2 and deposited the mobile to Opp.Party No.2 for repairing , but Opp.Party No.2 did not return the mobile after repairing, rather Opp.Party No.2 asked him to purchase the new battery from them at a discount rate, and he, after informing the Opp.Party No.1, found no positive result, nor get his mobile back from Opp.Party No.2. Thus, it is clearly established that the mobile hand-set purchased by the complainant from Opp.Party No.3 was a defective mobile and the defect was detected within warranty period and about the defect, notice of all three opp.parties was drawn, and the mobile was deposited to Opp.Party No.2 which is the customer care centre of Opp.Party No.1and Opp.Party No.2 neither repaired the said mobile, nor returning the mobile, rather they asked the complainant to purchase a battery from them at a discount rate. So, this act of seizing the mobile of the complainant by Opp.Party No.2 is an illegal act; and therefore, we hold that all three opp.parties are liable to repair the mobile in free of cost having it has manufacturing defect, but said mobile was neither repaired nor replaced with a new one. These acts, to our opinion, amounts to deficiency of service towards the complainant. Secondly, we are of opinion that the mobile was a defect mobile which is unrepairable and for that reason opp.parties are liable to replace the said mobile with a new one or to pay the value of it. Thirdly, we are also of opinion that by not repairing or replacing said mobile, the opp.parties caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant, for which, they are liable to pay compensation. We also hold that the opp.parties are liable to pay cost of proceeding to the complainant having for the fault of the opp.parties, the complainant is compelled to prosecute them before this forum.
3) Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that the complaint has merit . Accordingly, the complaint against all three opp.parties is allowed on exparte, and the opp.parties are directed to refund the value of the mobile which is Rs.6,200/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 28.4.16 or to replace it with a new one and also to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceeding ; to which they are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 (forty five) days, in default, other two amounts shall also carry interest in the same rate.
Given under our hand and seal on this the 16th day of August ,2017.
(Smti. Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md. Sahadat Hussain)
Member President
