BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 21/2019   Filed on 30/01/2019

ORDER DATED: 30/07/2021

Complainant:

1. Mr.Padmanabha Iyer, residing at TC 37/710-1, “Souparnika”,

              Vazhappally Madom, West Street, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram –  695 023.

2. Kiran Padmanabhan, Employed at Qburst Technologies, 7^th Floor,

Ganga, Technopark Phase 3, Thiruvananthapuram,residing at TC

37/710-1, “Souparnika”, Vazhappally Madom, West Street, Fort,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 023.

(By Adv. S.Reghukumar)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s.Micromax informatics Ltd., 288A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurugram 122015 (21/14A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area Delhi – 110 028), represented by its CEO.
2. M/s. Micromax Authorised service centre, TC 2/2442-11, 4^th floor, Menathottam Chambers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 036.  Represented by its In charge.
3. Mr.Shafeek, In charge of M/s. Micromax Authorised service centre, TC 2/2442-11, 4^th floor, Menathottam Chambers, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 036. 

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

                        The second complainant is the son of the 1^st complainant and he purchased a micromax Tab model No.P70221 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party for the personal use of the 1^st complainant, his father.

                        The 2^nd complainant had purchased online the Tab from the amazon.in by paying Rs.4716/- on 13/02/2017.  As per the display price the Tab was priced for Ra.7999/-.  The invoice was generated by the dealer of Amazon namely Novex Traders.

                        The complainants had used the Micromax Tab (P70221, & inch, 16GB, Wi-Fi+3G+Voice Calling) Black X000LIZEG9 with IMEI No.911435255788446 for a short period and during the said period the set suffered frequent shutting down and hanging of the system and consistently impaired its function and use.

The complainant had informed about the defects of the Tab to the customer care unit of 1^st opposite party and they informed the complainants to avail the service of their authorized centre at Thiruvananthapuram, which is the 2^nd opposite party as the product was still under warranty.  There was 12 months warranty for the Tab.

                        The complainants had on 20/01/2018 entrusted the tablet for repair with the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties informed the complainant that the tab will be ready after a week and directed the complainants to report to them to fetch the rectified tab.

                        The 1^st complainant made several visits to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties but on all visits it was informed to the 1^st complainant that the Tab was sent to the 1^st opposite party as the tab was covered under warranty and that same shall only be repaired at its manufacturing unit at Delhi.  The Tab became defective during warranty period and the set was taken into possession by the opposite parties also during the warranty period.  The complainant thereafter made several enquiries with the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties but there was no response.

                        The complainants stated that even after the lapse of more than 9 months the opposite parties have not cared to repair and return the tab to the complainants.  Even today the possession of the tab is with the opposite parties.  The set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects.  The fact is reinforced by the very fact that the set has not been repaired and handed over.  The defects are beyond repair and it is for the reason that the set is retained by the opposite parties despite the passage of 9 months.  The 1^st complainant is thus deprived of the use of the mobile phone.

                        The 3^rd opposite party is not answering the calls of complainants who wanted to ascertain the fate of the Tab entrusted to the opposite parties for rectification under warranty cover.  That Act and conduct of the opposite parties constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainants have suffered mental agony and monetary loss on account of the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.

                        The complainant therefore issued a legal notice on 10/10/2018 to the opposite parties.   The 1^st opposite party accepted the notice, but refused to return or replace the mobile phone, and also did not reply to the notice.  The notice sent to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were returned with the endorsement “Left”. 

                        After receiving the notice the opposite parties not entered appearance before the court and they set ex parte.  The 1^st complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P8 marked.  From the side of opposite parties no evidence produced.

                        Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost? 

Issues No 1&2: According to the complainant the possession of the Tab is with the opposite parties and the set suffers from inherent manufacturing defects.  The complainant issued a legal notice on 10/10/2018 to the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party had accepted the notice and not reply to the notice.  The notice sent to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party were returned with the endorsement “Left”.  Ext.P7 series were the notice sent to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  Ext.P8 shown that Rs.4,788/- received from complainants to advertisement in Kerala Koumudi Paper publication also produced.  Ext.P1 is the invoice dated 13/02/2017 for an amount of Rs.4,716/-.  Ext.P3 series is the warranty card.  The complainant stated that the tab was given for repair to 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party on 20/01/2018 and the Job Card dated 20/01/2018 is produced and marked as Ext.P2.  In Ext.P2 problem reported “4101 Power Does Not Switch On”.

We perused relevant documents on record.Ext.P2 shows that the tablet was given to 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party within the warranty period for repair.But the opposite parties had not repaired and returned the tab to the complainant.Also the opposite parties had not replied the notices given to them by the complainant.More over the opposite parties does not appear before the Commission.The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.The complainant used the Tab for a short period and that period the tab suffered frequent shutting down and having of the system and consistently impaired its function and use.The complainant stated that at the time of repairing the tab, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite party stated that the tab will be ready after a week.But the opposite parties had not repaired the tab and given to the complainants.According to the complainant the defects are beyond repair and it is for the reason that the set in retained by the opposite parties.No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties.

The opposite parties have committed deficiency in service for which they are liable to pay compensation along with return of price of the Tab.

In the result complaint allowed.We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 4,716/- (Rupees Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixteen Only) as the price of the tab with interest at 12% from 13/02/2017 till realization and pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation and pay of Rs.2,500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of proceeding to the complainant.Failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization.   

 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is 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 July 2021.

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                         P.V. JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT

             Sd/-

                                                                       PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER

                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                 VIJU V.R      : MEMBER

C.C.No.21/2019

                                        APPENDIX

I        COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

II       COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

  P1: Copy of invoice dated 13/02/2017.

  P2: Original Job card dated 20/01/2018.

  P3 Series: Warranty Card

  P4: Copy of legal notice dated 10/10/2018.

  P5 Series: Acknowledgment Card.

  P6: Acknowledgment Card.

  P7 Series: notice sent to the 2^nd &3^rd opposite parties were returned with

                   the endorsement “Left”.

  P8: Receipt of Kerala Kaumudi Pvt. Ltd.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                     NIL

IV      OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                       NIL

                                                                  Sd/-

PRESIDENT