IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 31st day of May, 2017
Filed on .21.10.2016.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.49/2017
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:
Sri.Sunilkumar.A 1. Micromax Informatics Ltd
S/o Arumughan 21/14 A phase-11
Puthenparambil Narana Industrial Area,
Mararikulam North .P.O New Delhi-110028
Alappuzha Represented by its
Person – In- Charge/ Manager
2. M/s Getronics
Near SDV School
Alappuzha- 688013
Represented by its Proprietor.
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is short as follows:-
The complainant has purchased a micromax canvas P-480 Tablet on 2.11.2015 through Amazon online service for an amount or Rs. 5,699/-. When the petitioner started to use the device he noticed that the battery of the Tab is overheating and it could not use for a longer duration. On January 21st 2016 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party for repairing the product. The 2nd opposite party has sent to the product to Delhi for better service and returned the phone after 40 days. But the defect was not properly rectified. The complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party on 29-9-2016 and the opposite party again sent it to Delhi and the complainant also remitted an amount of Rs. 400/- towards repairing charges and the set was returned on 4/2/2016 but the defect persisted. The act of the opposite parties caused much mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence filed this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 and 2 did not appear before the Forum and set expartie.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1-A4 marked and the gadget was marked as MO1.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant the Forum has raised the following issues:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?
5. Issues 1 and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Tab manufactured by the 1st opposite party on 2/11/2015. The product has 1 year warranty. The product became defective on 21/1/2016 and entrusted to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the 1st opposite party and the product was returned after 40 days. The product was again defective on several occasions and entrusted to the 2nd opposite party but the defect was not rectified and the defect persisted and the complainant could not use the gadget. In the meantime the warranty of the product has been expired. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
6. The complainant produced 4 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 2/11/2015. Ext.A2 is the Job Sheet dated 21/1/2016. Ext.A3 is the Job Sheet Dated 29/9/2016. Ext.A4 is the Job Sheet dated 29/12/2016. From the documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased a micromax canvas P-480 Tab for an amount of Rs. 5,699/-on 2/11/2015 and the product became defective on many occasions during the warranty period but the defect was not rectified and the defect persisted. In the meantime the warranty of the product has been expired and the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 400/- towards repairing on 29/12/2016 but the product was returned with an endorsement that the product is not repairable. According to the complainant he had purchased the product honestly believing the assurance of the opposite party regarding warranty and after sale services. On considering the facts of the case it is clear that the product became defective during the warranty period and opposite parties failed to provide after sale service to complainant and it amount to deficiency in service. The documents produced would clearly shows that the product became defective on many occasions during the warranty period and the defect has not been rectified properly. Ext.A4 shows that the product is not repairable. So the complainant entitled to get the relief. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the same.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the gadget Rs. 5,699/- (Rupees Five thousand Six hundred and Ninety nine only)to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) towards compensation. No order as to cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the amount of Rs. 5,699/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
On compliance of the order the opposite parties can collect the MO1 from the office of the Forum.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier(Member)
APPENDIX:
Evidence of the Complainant:
PW1 - Sunilkumar. H(Witness)
Ext.MO1 - Tablet
Ext.A1 - Copy of Retail invoice Dtd. 2/11/2015
Ext.A2 - Copy of Job Sheet Dtd. 21/01/2016
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Job sheet Dtd. 29/09/2016
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Job Sheet Dtd. 29/12/2016
Evidence of the opposite party: Nil
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comped . by:
