Date of filing : 04-09-2015
Date of order : 28-11-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.229/2015
Dated this, the 28th day of November 2015
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
C.V.Bhavanan, Karakkunnu, Kinanoor.Po. : Complainant
Parappa, Kasaragod. 671533.
(In Person)
1 M/s. Micromax India, Micromax House, : Opposite parties
90.B. Sector 18, Gurgon, Pin 122015.Hariyana.
2 M/s. Orange Mobile Centre, Opp. Bus Stand,
Kanhangad. Pin. 671 315.
3 M/s. Profit Mobile Zone, KMCU.S/1296 & 1297
Land Mark Centre, Near Municipal Bus Stand,
Kasaragod.
(Ops 1 to 3 Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The facts of the case is that, the complainant Sri.C.V. Bhavanan purchased a Micromax Mobile Phone from opposite party No.2 on 25-07-2014 for Rs.10,500/-. Complaints started within one week of purchase of mobile phone. Camera of the mobile was not clear unable to watch videos unable to down load pictures and messages. Complainant informed all the facts to opposite party No.2 and he took the phone for repair, and after repair returned it after 45 days. But those complaints continued after the repair also. Mobile became defective on 17-07-2014 and was entrusted to opposite party No.3 as per the advice of opposite party No.2. Eventhough opposite party No.3 returned it after one month the defects continued. Complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3 in cheating with misleading advertisements. The phone had no qualities as claimed in advertisements. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite parties 2 & 3 served notice on12-09-2015 but did not turned up. Name of opposite parties 2 & 3 called absent set exparte. Notice to 1st opposite party neither returned nor received any acknowledgement. It is presumed under S.28(A) of CP Act that the 1st opposite party duly served the notice. Hence name of 1st opposite party called absent, set exparte .Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 & A2 marked.
4. The question raised for consideration are:
1 Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2 If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2: Complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile set from opposite party No.2 on 25-07-2014 for Rs.10,500/- and the bill is marked as Ext.A1. On the 5th day of purchase, mobile set got heated and unable to use and was given to repair. Ext.A2 is the Job card issued by opposite party No.3 on 21-07-2015. Opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set after 45 days but the defects were not rectified properly. Complainant did not get the usage of a smart phone. Exts A1 & A2 proved the case of the complainant. Opposite party No.3 accepted the phone for repair when warranty is existing. Complainant stated in the affidavit that even after the repair also, he did not get the usage of an ordinary phone in a smart phone clearly shows that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3 Opposite party No.3 is reputed company and if they are evading from giving after sale service for proper service, whom the ordinary customers will trust and improper service damaged their reputation.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10500/- being the price of the mobile phone and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.28-7-14 Copy of Cash Bill
A2. 21-7-2015 Copy of Job Sheet.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
