BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No: 97/2012 Filed on 23/03/2012 Dated : 31..07..2012
Complainant:
Dr. Devraj. R, NPPN 40-A, Aswathy, VP 1/60, NPP Nagar Lane – 1, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 005.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
CEO, Micromax Mobile, (Micromax India), Micromax Informatics Ltd., Plot No. 21/14, Block A, Nariana Industrial Area, Phase – II, New Delhi – 110 028.
Micromax Service Centre, Bank of Baroda Building Complex, Old GPO Junction, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.
Pothy's Lifestyle, Vth Floor, Pothys, MG Road, Opp. SMV School, Thiruvananthapuram
This O.P having been heard on 21..07..2012 the Forum on 31..07..2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
Complainant Dr. Devraj. R has filed this complaint against the opposite parties alleging as follows: Complainant had purchased a Mobile handset on 8/10/11 paying an amount of Rs. 7,730/-. The phone had a warranty for one year. Complainant alleges that the range of the phone was completely dropping down and not recovering automatically, the touch screen was not working at times and poorly responding most of the times. Though the same was given for servicing for repair, the defects were not cured and it persisted. Complainant had to visit the Service Centre 6 times and when the phone was finally entrusted to the Service Centre, they took back the phone and told the complainant that it will take 30 – 40 days since the spare parts have to come from their headquarters. That the complainant was not provided with a spare phone either. Hence this complaint for refund of the cost of the phone along with compensation.
2. Opposite parties remain exparte.
Complainant has filed his affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2.
3. The issues for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4. Points (i) & (ii): The grievance of the complainant is that the Mobile phone purchased by him for Rs. 7,730/- was a defective one and even after several repairs the defects were not rectified and that the phone is now with the opposite party as they have not returned the phone for want of spare parts.
5. Complainant has pleaded that, he had initially purchased one handset and as the same had manufacturing defect the same was immediately replaced and the phone in dispute was given to the complainant. Though initially the handset had no problems with the receiver speaker or other obvious problems, later on the range started dropping even in a full signal strength area and that the complainant had to manually go to the settings and search for network manually. Complainant further pleads that sometimes, the phone started to get heated and the battery power dropped in minutes. That the complainant would not know that the range of the phone has dropped until he takes it out and checks it. Though the Service Centre returned the phone stating that the problem has been resolved, the problems still continued.
6. The opposite parties have not appeared before the Forum to contest the allegations levelled against them. Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has not been cross examined. Hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
7. Complainant submits that the handset was entrusted with the Service Centre and they had told the complainant to wait for another about 2 months as the spare had to be brought from Delhi.
8. Considering the entire evidence and pleadings we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint. Complainant who is a Doctor has narrated the difficulties he had to face due to the non-availability of handset. Further the complainant pleads that as he is preparing for MD Entrance he had requested for a spare phone which was also not given to him. Complainant could not use the internet connection also. Considering the difficulties faced by the complainant, we find that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Since the handset is with the opposite parties, the proceedings under Sec 13(1) need not be complied with. As the complainant could not use the phone defect free even from the very beginning of its purchase, it is implied that he has been curtailed the joy of using a new phone defect free. If repeated servicing and repairing of the phone fail in resolving the problems encountered by its operator, it points to the existence of some serious defect in it. Hence we find that the complainant has been supplied with a defective phone. When it is still with the opposite parties for want of spare parts we find it reasonable that the complainant be paid the cost of the handset instead of replacement, as the opposite parties cannot be relied on in such a situation.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs. 7,730/- along with Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of the Order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of July, 2012.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
ad. BEENA KUMARI.A., MEMBER.
C.C.No: 97/2012
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of bill No. B4673 issued from Pothys Life Style.
P2 : Copy of Customer Job Card (jobsheet No.W030403- 0312-701283) issued from Micromax
II. Complainant's witness : NIL
III. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
