Complaint filed on:12.02.2016
Complaint Disposed on: 21.03.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.9/2016
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Smt K.R.Shalini W/o Jeevan,
A/a 32 years, House wife,
R/o Kundoor Village & Post,
Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur(D).
(By Sri/Smt. H.M.Sudhakar, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The proprietor,
Cell Den, S.K. Complex,
I.G Road, Chikmagalur city.
2. M/s.Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
21/14A, Phase II, Naraina
Industrial Area, Delhi-110028.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon,
Hariyana-122015.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. L.P.Sathish, Advocate)
(OP No.2 & 3- exparte)
By Hon’ble Member Smt.Manjula,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 3 alleging unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile hand set to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos.1 to 3 to replace the defective handset with new one or to refund the handset amount of Rs.9,100/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant had purchased Micromax Canvas DOODLE 4Q 391 mobile handset from Op no.1 on 08.08.2015 under bill no.268 for Rs.9,100/-, who is the dealer of Op no.2. Op no.3 is the customer care of the Op no.2 and Op no.2 is the manufacturer of the said handset. But after purchase of the mobile handset complainant noticed that the mobile started giving trouble like display hanging, heat and also power key damaged. The complainant immediately approached Op no.1 for rectification of the defects and to solve the said problems and the Op no.1 took the handset and told the complainant to come after two days to take the handset, after two days the complainant received the repaired handset from Op no.1, after some days using the mobile handset the complainant observed that the said problems were not rectified. Again complainant approached the Op no.1, at that time the Op no.1 refused to solve the said problem of the mobile handset & Op no.1 being the seller of the handset have not replaced the handset.
3. In this regard the complainant suffered loss of communication and inconvenience. Hence, Op Nos. 1 to 3 rendered unfair trade practice in selling the defective handset to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos.1 to 3 to replace the defective handset with new one or to refund the amount paid towards defective mobile handset with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
4. After service of notice, Op no.1 appeared through his counsel and filed version. Op no.2 & 3 have not appeared before this forum, hence, Op no.2 & 3 placed exparte.
5. Op no.1 in his version has contended that at the time of purchase of the said mobile handset is under working condition and further Op no.1 submits that complainant has handed over the mobile handset to the service centre and the defects were rectified at free of cost and Op no.1 says that he is the only dealer of the said mobile handset, so he is not liable to replace the defective mobile handset, it is liability of Op no.2 and 3, hence, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of Op no.1. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 and marked mobile handset as M.O.1. Op no.1 not filed any affidavit or document in support of his defense.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice in selling defective mobile handset?
- 2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. The complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice against Op no.1 to 3 and filed affidavit with purchasing bill. On perusal of the affidavit and bill it is true that as per Ex.P.1 complainant had purchased Micromax Canvas DOODLE 4Q 391 mobile handset on 08.08.2015 by paying Rs.9,100/-. After that the complainant handed over the said handset to Op no.1 for repair the handset. After repair of the handset the same problem was continued. The said handset marked as M.O.1, again the complainant approached the Op no.1, but Op no.1 refused to repair the mobile handset and told that the mobile handset power key was damaged, power key was not available with them. and returned without repairing the said handset to the complainant.
The complainant also produced the handset before this forum for perusal. On observation of the handset we noticed that the said Micromax Canvas DOODLE 4Q 391 handset is not working properly and Op no.2 & 3 have not appeared before this forum to answer the allegations made by the complainant, hence, we consider Op no. 2 & 3 have accepted that the handset sold to the complainant is having manufacturing defect. In order to avoid the replacement of the handset Op no.2 & 3 have not appeared before this forum. Therefore, we consider Op no.2 & 3 have rendered unfair trade practice in selling the defective mobile handset to the complainant. Op no.1 to 3 being a dealer and manufacturers are responsible for the replacement of the handset with new one and Op no.1 also agreed in his version that the mobile handset have manufacturing defect. As such Op no.1 to 3 are liable to replace the defective handset with new one. If they failed to do so Op no.1 to 3 are liable to refund the amount of Rs.9,100/-, value of the handset to the complainant. Op no.1 to 3 are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant for unfair trade practice in selling defective handset. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
- OP No.1 to 3 are directed to replace the defective mobile handset with new one having no defects within one month, failing which Op no.1 to 3 further directed to refund the consideration amount of Rs.9,100/- value of the handset to the complainant within 15 days. Op no.1 to 3 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant for unfair trade practice within said period, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 21st day of March 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Invoice for having purchase of the mobile handset dtd08.08.15
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:21.03.2017 Member
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
