COMPLAINT FILED: 11.01.2012
DISPOSED ON: 29.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
29th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 77/2012
Complainant | Sri. V. Satish Amarnath, C/o Srinivasa Nilayam, H. No. 747/6, Sector-A, Ramaiah Reddy Colony, Basvanagar, Bangalore – 560 037. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Plot No. 234, HPSIDC Industrial Area, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt Solan – 173205. 2.Mobile Seva Micromax Servicing Centre, NICT Computer Center, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
Sri. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against OPs to pay an amount of Rs.4,400/- along with expenditure incurred by the complainant on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. In spite of service of notice, OPs failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
3. In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents.
4. Heard arguments from complainant’s side.
5. We have gone through the complaint averments, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of the complainant. On the basis of these materials, it becomes clear that complainant purchased CDMA/GSM handset of Micromax Model No. GC400 on 10.07.2011 from Friend’s Telecom Shop No.5, Ist ‘A’ Main Road, JM Complex, Vignan Nagar, Bangalore by paying an amount of Rs.4,400/- as per Cash Invoice produced. OP.1 is the manufacturer of the said handset, OP.2 is the authorized Service Centre. Within two days of the purchase of the handset, the display was not working. The complainant deposited the said handset with OP.2. OP.2 neither repaired nor replaced the handset inspite of complainant’s several visits. The complainant has registered the complaint with Micromax Call Centre through e-mail, the copy of the same has been produced. Thus it becomes clear that the mobile handset manufactured by OP.1 is a defective one and the same has not been repaired by OP.2 since more than 06 months. The act of OP.1 in manufacturing the defective handset and supplying the same to its dealer is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. OP.2 had taken time to attend the service only on the ground that the handset is being sent to higher Servicing Centre. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 and 2 and unfair trade practice in selling the defective handset. The complainant is entitled for refund of the price of Rs.4,400/- of the handset paid along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The very fact of OPs remaining ex-parte leads to draw inference that OPs are admitting the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed.
OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,400/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Png.
