Order-12.
Date-09/12/2015.
In this complaint Complainant Seadip Sahaby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one piece of mobile phone hand set of Rs.18,800/- being model No. Micromax Canvas Turbo A250, IMEI No.911334750088917 from the op no.2 on 23.12.2013 vide Retail Invoice No.937.
After purchasing of the said mobile set complainant found some problem in the mobile set on February 2014 such as Touch Panel Problem, Software Problem, Poor Reception of Signal and in such situation complainant visited to the op no.3 on 21.06.2014 for repair the above problems and after proper inspection made by the technical engineer under op no.3, received the said micromax mobile set and issued a receipt note.
Thereafter on 11.11.2014 again complainant visited to the op no.3 with same problem and also then after proper inspection received the mobile set with receipt note.But just after 28 days later op no.3 informed the complainant over telephone to take back the mobile hand set which was repaired properly.After getting the telephonic message, complainant on 15.12.2014 visited to the office of the op no.3 but at the time of handing over the set, complainant found the same problems remained in the same.So, op no.3 kept the mobile hand set for further repairing.
Thereafter complainant sent several letters through Speed Post Registered with A/D to the op nos. 1 & 3 on 01.04.2015 and 15.05.2015 requesting them to take necessary action as he has suffered economical loss and also mental agony.But after receiving of the same by the op nos. 1 & 2, no reply was made.
So, in such a situation ops failed and neglected to deliver the said mobile phone hand set after proper repair with proper working condition in favour of the complainant instead of that ops refused to deliver the same.Although ops are duty bound to deliver the same after proper repair, but that has not been done by the ops. So, it is clearly proved that there is deficiency and negligence in the service on the part of the ops.
So, under this circumstances complainant compelled to file a complaint against the ops for refund of the entire price of the Micromax Mobile Hand Set and also for redressal and compensation.
On the other hand notices of this complaint were duly served upon all the ops, except op no.1 no one was present after serving the summon of this Forum and on 07.09.2015 Ld. Lawyer of op no.1 appeared by filing power of complaint and annexures were supplied to the Ld. Lawyer of op no.1.But after that no ops were present to follow the Forum’s order.In such circumstances, finally this complaint was heard in exparte form.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the record of the complaint case and also materials it is found that the case is heard exparte only for negative attitude of the ops because in the present case notices were duly served upon the ops, but they did not turn up.But fact remains that MicromaxInfosolution Ltd. i.e. op no.1 appeared by filing power, but thereafter they did not file any written statement and did not contest this case and not only that other ops also received notices of the complaint, but did not turn up and in this regard Postal Internet result prove that M/s. Spice Hotspot and M/s. Sun Infosolution received notices but did not contest this case.So, in the above circumstances, there was no other alternative but to proceed with the case and finally it was heard exparte.
In the above circumstances after considering the complaint including the materials as filed by the complainant, we find that no doubt complainant purchased one Micromax Canvas Turbo A250, IMEI No.911334750088917 from the op no.2 on 23.12.2013 vide Retail Invoice No.937 from the op no.2 on 23.12.2012 on payment of Rs. 18,800/- and it is the allegation of the complainant that in the month of February-2014 he faced some problems during using the said handset and those problems were Touch Panel Problem, Software Problem, Poor Reception of Signal etc. and fact remains that complainant went to op no.3 the service Centre of Micromax on 21.06.2014 for repair.But on proper inspection made by the technical engineer the op received the said mobile set and issued a receipt note.After lapse of 28 days op no.3 assured that Mobile handset was properly repaired and accordingly complainant went to op no.3 on 15.12.2014.But he found that those problems are there and complainant pointed out the problems to op no.3 and op no.3 kept the mobile handset for further repairing.But thereafter ops failed and neglected to deliver the mobile handset after proper repairing and in working condition to the complainant inspite of complainant’s demand, ops refused to deliver the same.
In the above circumstances complainant sent several notices and prayed for relief.But they did not pay any heed and considering the said handset, it is found that even the handset is within the warranty period but ops did not render service and harassed the complainant and for want of handset, complainant suffered much daily for which complainant prayed for refund of the price of the handset and for compensation etc.
Document Annexure-A Invoice by which complainant purchased the said hand set on 23.12.2012 and complainant paid Rs. 18,800/- for purchasing the said handset.Exhibit-B supports that op no.3 received the said mobile handset for repairing on 21.06.2014, job sheet was also issued on 11.11.2014 for payment of Rs. 500/-.But fact remains that warranty period at that time was valid but it is found that thereafter the said mobile handset has not been handed over to the complainant by the op nos. 1 or 3 and it is proved that the said mobile hand set is in the possession of op no.3.
Most interesting factor is that the item was purchased on 23.12.2013 and it was deposited with several defects on 21.06.2014 that means within 6 months all the problems were detected and that is within warranty period.So, as per warranty clause it is the duty of the op to make the said handset in working condition by repairing but that has not been done.
So, as per warranty clause, they are bound to do that but they did not discharge their legal responsibility as per warranty clause to repair the same at a free of cost as per warranty clause and to hand over the same immediately but that has not been done.
Further fact is that complainant sent notices one after another that is DD1 & DD2.But no response was made on behalf of the op.But fact remains that all those notices were duly served upon the op but ops did not respond.
Considering all the above facts, we are convinced to hold that as because ops had or have no defence even after appearance of the mobile company, they did not contest and they are well aware of the fact that they have committed wrong and their service is irregular and deficient in manner.
At the same time the ops had their every chance to defy the allegation of the complainant but that has not been done.So, in the above circumstances relying upon the unchallenged testimony of the complainant including the documents, we are convinced to hold that complainant has been harassed by the ops without any reasonable cause and it is also proved that ops did not render the service and also neglected to entertain the complainant as a consumer to handover the said set after proper repairing for which no doubt complainant has been harassed much and truth is that the said mobile handset was taken by the op no.3 on behalf of the op no.1 for repairing on 21.06.2014.But in the meantime one year and six months have already passedbut op no.3 kept the same in their custody without repairing, without giving service and for which complainant for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the ops are entitled to get relief.
In the result, the complaint succeeds exparte.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed in exparte with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the ops.
Op nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to refund the entire amount of the mobile handset that is Rs. 18,800/- within one month from the date of this order and for causing mental pain and agony and sufferings and also for violating the terms and conditions, the op nos.1 & 2 shall have to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
Accordingly op nos. 1 & 3 are hereby directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 28,800/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for harassing the complainant for further period, op nos. 1 & 3 shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decre and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum and decretal amount of Rs. 28,800/- shall be paid by op nos. 1 & 3 within one month from the date of this order, failing which further proceeding shall be started u/s 25 read with section 27 of C.P. Act 1986, for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the ops.
