DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 8th day of February, 2018
C.D Case No. 128 of 2015
Rajib Kumar Parida
At/Po: Randiahat
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Mobile Solution
Jaganathpur College Road
Ps: Bhadrak (T)
Dist: Bhadrak
2. M/S PN Service
Near SBI Nayabazar Branch
Ps: Bhadrak (T)
Dist: Bhadrak
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd.
21/14A, Phase- 2
Naraina Industrial Area
Delhi- 110028
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri P. K. Samal & Others
For the O.Ps 1 & 2: Ex-parte
For the OP No. 3: Sri M.C Pat
Date of hearing: 21.04.2016
Date of order: 08.02.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them against the complainant. The complainant had purchased one mobile hand set of Micromax-A069 Model bearing IMEI No- 911367801601270 & ESN No- 911367801851776 from (OP No.1) Mobile Solution, Jaganathpur, Bhadrak, dt. 02.10.2014. That on dt. 20.09.2015 the complainant confronted with some problems in the hand set and on the next day the same was automatically stopped its outgoing functioning. On 22.09.2015 the complainant deposited the same hand set with the company’s service center (OP No. 2) M/S P N Service, Nayabazar, and Bhadrak by his nephew Sri Shibasrit Samal.
That on dt. 06.10.2015 the complainant has reminded over the phone to the Head Office of the company & they have allotted the complainant a Ref. No- MMX0610151187756. Thereafter on several times the complainant has gone to service center (OP No. 2) and reminded them, but they have not taken any action to get back the hand set to the complainant. The complainant has again and again requested to their company’s Heard Office 0124-4811000 and Bhubaneswar Office No- 06742536897 over phone. But all the efforts and requests were in vain. Hence the complainant has sought for the reliefs for awarding the cost of the handset & compensation towards harassment. The complainant has filed the Xerox copies of documents.
1. Cash memo- 1 sheet.
2. Warranty card- 1 sheet.
3. Warranty terms & conditions- 1 sheet.
4. Mobile solution- 1 sheet.
The OP No. 3 has appeared before the Forum through his recognized advocate and filed his written version as follows.
The OP No. 3 has challenged the maintainability of this proceeding, lack of cause of action, proceeding is premature. It is also not maintainable and non-joinder of necessary party. This proceeding is liable to be dismissed due to non submission of relevant documents. The averment made by the complainant in his complaint is false, fabricated, vague & wrong. The Para No- 1 to 3 are completely denied by the OP No. 3. He has also averred that the other part of the complaint is also denied by the OP No. 3. The fact is that though the complainant purchased the alleged mobile but he has not personally visited the authorized person of the service center of the company. As the alleged mobile set was in trouble just before the warranty period, the complainant through his nephew deposited the alleged set before the OP no. 2 on dt. 22.09.2015. The OP No. 2 is the Level- 2 service center of the company and as the alleged set is beyond control of the OP No. 2 service center, instead of returning the set to the complainant he advised for depositing in the higher service center of the company, the OP No. 2 for the interest of the complainant, sent the alleged set to the Level- 3 service center i.e. M/S M Care, Bhubaneswar on dt. 23.09.2015 for up-to-date the alleged mobile set. However the alleged set was ready before the Level- 3 and Level- 3 service center sent the mobile set to OP No. 2 on dt. 14.12.2015 and same was received by the OP No. 2 on dt. 18.12.2015 and thereafter the OP No. 2 including Level- 3 service center and Head Office were made several contacts and advised to the complainant for returning back the alleged mobile set. The alleged mobile set is yet with the OP No. 2. As the alleged mobile set is ready for service and the mobile company is doing his best service to the complainant, as such the O.Ps are not liable for deficiency in service towards the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant knowing that the alleged mobile has duly repaired and in the custody of the OP No. 2, in an ill motive not received the mobile set and continue the case till date. Hence the OP No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the proceeding.
The OP No. 3 has filed some documents on his behalf (Xerox copies).
1. MBIOS-Service-Service work-Observation Vide No- 27390875- 1 sheet.
2. Cash memo- 1 sheet.
3. Warranty card- 1 sheet.
4. Job sheet- 1 sheet.
5. Customer details- 1 sheet.
OBSERVATIONS
The complainant has become aggrieved against the O.Ps that he had purchased one mobile hand set of Micromax-A069 Mode bearing IMEI No- 911367801601270 & ESN No- 911367801851776 from (OP No. 1) Mobile Solution, Bhadrak, dt. on 02.10.2014. On 20.09.2015 the complainant found some manufacturing & other technical draw backs with the hand set. And on 21.09.2015 the said hand set was automatically stopped its outgoing function. On 22.09.2015 the complainant deposited the hand set with the companies service center OP no. 1 by the help of his nephew. Secondly on 06.10.2015 the complainant has also reminded to the Head Offices of the company over the phone and they have allotted to the complainant Ref. No- MMX0610151187756. The complainant has visited several times to the OP No. 2 and intimated him with the Ref. number. But no result was obtained. The complainant has requested to the Bhubaneswar Office No- 06742536897 over the telephone. But every effort has become in vain.
The OP No. 1 & 2 have avoided the appearance before this Forum in spite of receiving the notice. They have neither appeared nor filed their written version. Hence they have been set ex-parte due to the disobedience of the Courts order.
The OP No. 3 has appeared before the Forum & filed his written version. He has admitted that the hand set had gone out of order & it was deposited before the OP No. 2 on behalf of the complainant. The OP No. 2 is the Level- 2 service center. The complainant should have deposited such hand set with the Level-3 service center because the repairing of said hand set was beyond the capacity of the Level-2 service center. The Level-3 service center has already repaired the said hand set and handed over to the OP No. 2. After several intimations sending to the complainant on behalf of the OP No. 3 to take back his hand set but he did not respond the intimation of the OP No. 3, and the said mobile hand set is still with the OP No. 2.
After observing the facts we have come to the conclusion that the complainant had purchased the mobile hand set. The OP No. 3 has already admitted that the said mobile hand set had gone out of order before the date of expiry of warranty. He has also written in his written version about the Level-3 service center but he has not made it clear that the identification, the situation and the location of the Level-3 service center. The OP No. 2 has never intimated to the complainant about the reparation of the mobile hand set. The OP No. 1 has not taken any risk to comply the promise what he has assured to the complainant (Customer) regarding the warranty period. So it can be certainly considered that all the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 3 & ex-parte against the OP No. 1 & 2. All the O.Ps are directed to pay the cost of the mobile hand set Rs 5,800/-, as well as Rs 5,000/- towards mental agony & harassment, and Rs 3,000/- for the cost of the litigation to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of this order
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 8th February, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
