BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SHRI. P. SUDHIR                                :         PRESIDENT

SMT. SATHI. R                                   :         MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                            :         MEMBER

                                              C.C.No: 532/2015     Filed on 05/11/2015

                                            Dated: 30..09..2016

Complainant:

Binu. S., Sauganthikam, Cherappelli, Parandodu-P.O., Aryanad, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 542.

                    (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Micromax Mobile Company, Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015.

2. Nandana Mobile World, Aryanad, Near KSRTC Stand, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 542.

3. Micromax Service Centre, M/s Connexion, 3^rd Floor, Menathottam Chambers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

This C.C having been heard on 11..08..2016, the Forum on 30..09..2016  delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. P. SUDHIR, PRESIDENT:

          Complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased Micromax Mobile from 2^nd opposite party on 02/12/2014 for Rs. 6000/-. Mobile stopped working after 6 months. Complainant handed over the mobile to the 3^rd opposite party, which is the authorised service centre of 1^st opposite party, but the said mobile is not yet get repaired. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for redressal for refund of the amount.

2. Notice sent to opposite parties and the opposite parties not turned up and opposite parties set exparte.

          3. Issues:

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

          (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

          4. Issues (i) & (ii):   Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 marked. Since there is no contra evidence to peruse we believe the statement of complainant and we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 6,000/- being the cost of the mobile and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and there is no order as to cost. 

          In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and  severally liable to refund Rs. 6,000/- being the cost of the mobile and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and there is no order as to cost from one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

           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 30^th day of September, 2016.

                   Sd/-P. SUDHIR               :         PRESIDENT

                              Sd/-R. SATHI                  :         MEMBER

  Ad.                       Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR          :         MEMBER

C.C. No: 532/2015

APPENDIX

  I.  Complainant’s witness                   :         N I L

II.  Complainant’s documents:

          P1      :  Invoice bill of Nandana Mobiles dated 02/12/2014

P2      :  Copy of Job sheet of Micromax M/s. Connexion dated 05/08/2015

P3      :  Copy of Noor Mobiles & Studio, Aryanad dated 069/09/2015

III. Opposite parties’ witness               :         N I L

IV. Opposite parties’ documents          :         N I L

Sd/-PRESIDENT

    Ad.