BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 195/2014 Filed on 23.05.2014

Dated: 31.10.2014

Complainant:

Suresh Babu, S/o G. Sukumara Babu, T.C 51/2809-1, “Swathi”, Industrial Estate P.O, Pappanamcode, Thiruvananthapuram-695 019.

                             (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Micromax House, 908, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122 015.

    

2. Myfair Electronics, Shop No. 57, National Market, Gandhi Nagar, Bangalore-560 009.

    

3. M/s Smart Solutions (Kerala), Saphire Plaza, T.C 11/1955, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

                                     

This C.C having been heard on 09.10.2014, the Forum on 31.10.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

The complainant purchased a mobile phone (Micromax A 51) manufactured by 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party, the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party on 27.05.2013.  The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant purchased the said set for his wife, who has been monitoring the career oriented courses undergone by their daughter.  Within a week, the said set started showing defects one after the other.  The defects which the said mobile had shown at that time were (1) the battery in the said set is unable to keep charge in it, (ii) the said set cannot be made use of either for attending the calls or for making calls.  Complainant and his wife approached the 3^rd opposite party and entrusted the said set with them in the second week from the date of purchase.  Even though they instructed the employees of the 3^rd opposite party to note down all the aforesaid defects in the job sheet, they noted down only some of them, saying that they alone are main defects, and curing the said main defects would make it perfect.  The 3^rd opposite party returned the said set to the complainant after a month, saying that all those defects were rectified.  But returning the said mobile by repairing the same, the staff of 3^rd opposite party summoned the complainant twice, saying that it was repaired.  But when went to the shop, it was otherwise.  And the same complaint happened to be registered twice.  Hardly within two weeks, it started showing the very same defects again.  The said set was again entrusted with the 3^rd opposite party.  The employees of 3^rd opposite party told them that the said set had to be sent to the company for rectifying the defects and that it will take 2 weeks for the same.  But they returned the said set after 1½ months.  When the mobile set was with the opposite party for getting the same rectified, they would often get messages that the same was rectified.  When went to the shop, the staff of the 3^rd opposite party feigned ignorance as to the said message.  And this negligent and irresponsible act of the opposite parties caused to the complainant and his wife severe mental pain and agony.  It became a routine job for the wife of the complainant to approach the 3^rd opposite party with the aforesaid complaints and tried to get the same rectified, but was of no avail.  The complainant and his wife felt thoroughly humiliated by the purchase of the said device which has inherent manufacturing defects in it.  The temporary mobile handed over to them by the said staff was of no use after two weeks.  It has caused to the complainant and his wife great financial loss, mental and physical stress and strain.  The mental agony suffered by the complainant and his wife on account of the defective goods and completely defective service rendered by them is indescribable.  Further the opposite parties are guilty of unfair trade practice.  Since the said device is inherently defective, the same is of no use to the complainant and his wife.  So the cost of the said set has to be refunded to the complainant. 

Notice was issued from this Forum to the opposite parties.  But they never turned up and all the three opposite parties were declared ex-parte.  Complainant filed affidavit along with 5 documents which stands uncontroverted. 

Issues raised:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed 5 documents along with the complaint.  Copy of purchase bill is marked as Ext. P1.  Copy of warranty card is Ext. P2.  Copy of service bills dated 04.03.2014 is marked as Ext. P3.  Ext. P4 is another service bill dated 06.03.2014 and Ext. P5 is another bill dated 19.03.2014.  None of these documents is challenged.  The hand set in dispute is still with the 3^rd opposite party.  So the complainant herein is exempted from taking out an expert opinion to prove the defect.  The callous attitude of the opposite party is clearly established from the way they deal with the notice issued from this Forum.  So we don’t have any other alternative than to go with the complaint.  Complainant is eligible to get refund of the purchase price Rs. 4,950/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation, since the purpose for which the he purchased the hand set is not served. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 4,950/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant within two months of receipt of this order.   After this period, Rs. 4,950/- will carry interest at the rate of 8% till the date of realization.  No order on cost.      

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 31^st day of October 2014.

 

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

                                                                   Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

jb      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 195/2014

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of cash bill dated 27.05.2013

P2     - Copy of warranty card

P3     - Copy of material received note dated 04.03.2014

P4     - Copy of material received note dated 06.03.2014

P5     - Copy of material received note dated 19.03.2014

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL  

 

 

                                                                                                           Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb