Order No.   18    Dated  13-06-2016.

       The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Micromax Canvas Ego mobile phone being model no.A113 by paying Rs.11,500/- on 29.9.13 from YADSON, Khidirpore, Kolkata-23. On 23.10.13 suddenly the phone got pattern locked and it only displayed ‘emergency call’. On the very next date complainant went to o.p. and they issued a token and told the complainant to wait. Complainant waited till 7-00 p.m. and then o.p. informed the complainant that they would need five days to get the phone ready. After five days on 30.10.13 when complainant went to o.p. they told the complainant that they would need 2-3 days more to get it ready. On that day complainant sent a complaint through e-mail to Micromax head office and that office replied that the case has been closed from their end and suggested the complainant to receive a cross cheque from the customer care service. Thereafter, complainant contacted with Micromax Service Centre at their given phone no. i.e. 8697119798 but every time the phone was switched off. After 10-12 days complainant received a call from o.p. and they informed him that the mother board of the phone was damaged and so it was required to send the set to company head office. Complainant told them to send it to head office. On 18.11.13 when complainant went to o.p. no.1 they showed the phone of complainant with same condition and they issued a job sheet being no.E030421-1113-6463694. They also informed the complainant that they would send the same to head office and it would take 25 days to get back. They also assured the complainant that they would contact with him. Thereafter no response came from o.p’s side. Complainant visited o.p. no.1 but each and every they were unable to give a positive response. Lastly complainant visited the service centre on 24.12.13 but o.p. did not give any positive response. On that very day complainant again sent a complaint to Micromax head office describing the matter. Micromax head office replied him that they accepted the case. Hence the application praying for return of Rs.15,000/- along with interest and compensation and cost.

            O.p. had appeared before this Forum by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that due to technical difficulty the said complaint could not be resolved immediately. However, every possible means were taken by them to resolve the issue. Since it took longer to resolve the issue they sent it to next level for the main PCBA replacement for which a job sheet was created and handed over to complainant. Because of the delay in service the company offered him a free replacement for the main PCBA along with an extended period of warranty although the ‘pattern lock’ was not covered under warranty at the point of time. It was communicated to complainant but he denied to accept the handset for the reasons best known to him. At present the handset in question is in proper working condition along with extended warranty period. Hence they prayed for to direct the complainant to collect the repaired handset.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased a Micromax Canvas Ego mobile phone being model no.A113 by paying Rs.11,500/- on 29.9.13. On 23.10.13 suddenly the phone got pattern locked and it only displayed ‘emergency call’. On the very next date complainant went to o.p. no.1 and they issued a token and told the complainant to wait. Ultimately they informed the complainant that it would take 5 days to get the mobile set ready. After 5 days when complainant contacted with o.p. they informed them that it would take 2-3 days more. But they did not return it to complainant as per their assurance. When complainant contacted with them on 17.11.13 they issued a job sheet being job sheet no.E030421-1113-6463694 and informed the complainant that they would send it to their head office and it would take 25 days to get it repair. Complainant visited several times the shop of o.p. and lastly on 24.12.13 but o.p. did not give a positive response. O.p. has stated in their w/v that at present the phone is in proper working condition but when the phone was repaired properly they did not annex any document. Neither they showed any reason why it took so much time to get the phone set ready nor they filed any document that they had sent to their head office. Complainant had to rush the service center several times to get the mobile set back but in vain. Hence we find deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to refund a sum of Rs.11,500/- (Rupees eleven thousand five hundred) only to the complainant towards the cost price of the mobile phone in question and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.            

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.