By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite parties to return the price of the defective handset with cost and compensation.
2. Brief of the complaint:- On 18.04.2015 complainant purchased a Micromax Canvas pep mobile phone from the shop of opposite party No.2. But immediately after the purchase ie within 2 months the said mobile phone began to show some defects. The complainant approached the dealer since it was on warranty period. As per the direction given by opposite party No.2 this complainant entrusted the mobile phone to opposite party No.3 the authorized service centre. But after repair this disputed mobile phone showed recurrent complaints and now it was there with opposite party No.3 for last 2 months but they were not returned the handset inspite of repeated requests. Hence filed this complaint.
3. Opposite parties notices served on 28.03.2016, 23.03.2016, 19.03.2016 respectively. But except opposite party No.2 none appeared before this Forum to oppose their case. Hence opposite party No.1 and 3's name called absent and set ex-parte on 29.04.2016 and proceeded with the case.
4. Opposite party No.2 filed version. In the version, they admitted the transaction and date of purchase and further stated that complainant directly approached opposite party No.3 service centre, the actual fact is that this complainant did not approach this opposite party No.2 till this date with the alleged defects and the complainant might have directly approached the 3rd opposite party and what are the matters transpired between them are totally unknown to the 2nd opposite party. This opposite party is only an authorized distributor of various companies mobile phones and service was done by the authorized service centres. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the case against them.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 and A2 series documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Bill dated 18.04.2015. Ext.A2(1) is the copy of Job sheet dated 24.06.2015. Ext.A2(2) is the copy of Job sheet dated 31.07.2015. Ext.A2(3) is the copy of Job sheet dated 26.11.2015. Ext.A2(4) is the original of Job sheet dated 28.12.2015. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that no oral evidence from the part of them and heard the parties.
6. On perusal of complaint, version, affidavit and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
7. Point No.1:- The case in the complaint is that on 18.04.2015 complainant purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.2 and immediately after the date of purchase the mobile phone showed defects. Even after repeated repairs the defects were not cured and complainant entrusted the mobile phone several time to opposite party No.3 service centre. But they were not returned the repaired handset so far, hence filed this complaint. Complainant further alleged that it is opposite party No.2 who sold the defective set to him. As per the direction of opposite party No.2 he entrusted the mobile phone to the service centre ie opposite party No.3 since it was on warranty. As per the terms of warranty he is entitled to get a new mobile phone. To prove the case of complainant, he produced Ext.A2(4) original of job sheet issued by opposite party No.3 at the time of entrustment of the mobile phone to them. Complainant further submitted that only on receipt of the original job sheet opposite party No.3 the service centre will return the mobile phone to him. Now it is in the possession of complainant, undisputedly the defective mobile phone is with opposite party No.3 service centre.
8. In the reply version and at the time of hearing opposite party No.2 submitted that they are the dealers of mobile phones manufactured by different companies and after the purchase this complainant never approached them and they were not aware of all other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. Opposite party No.2 further argued that at the time of purchase this complainant was satisfied with the phone and he purchased this set according to his own wish and will.
9. To prove the case of the complainant he produced and marked Ext.A1 Bill dated 18.04.2015 and Ext.A2(1) to A2(4) series Job sheets issued by opposite party No.3 on different dates. Here in this case complainant not produced the mobile phone but original of Job sheet Ext.A2(4) is produced and this itself supports his case that the disputed handset is with service centre. None appeared on behalf of them to oppose the case of the complaint.
10. On going through the entire evidences and records we are of the opinion that opposite party No.2 is only a dealer of the mobile phones manufactured by different companies and complainant purchased this mobile phone according to his own satisfaction and if there is any defects with the handset it may be due to manufacturing defect. Since four complaints are noted and proved within 8 months through Ext.A2 series documents. But we could not find out a clear evidence of manufacturing defect, since the disputed mobile set was not produced before us, it is with opposite party No.3. But they were not present before this Forum to oppose the case of the complainant.
11. On perusal of Job Sheet we found that there was defects in the said mobile phone from 24.06.2015 onwards. The complainant entrusted the handset to opposite party No.3 on 24.06.2015, 31.07.2015, 26.11.2015 and 28.12.2015 with the complaints of “power does not switch on, power does not switch off, mechanics touch pad, mechanics touch pad”. Hence in our view that opposite party No.1 sold through opposite party No.2 a substandard handset having manufacturing defects and their service centre neglected to give proper service to the complainant. In the witness box complainant deposed that at the time of purchase he was satisfied with the handset and after two months the alleged defects started. Hence there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2 and we opine that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.1 and 3 and complainant is entitled to get relief. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
12. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, he is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to return the price of the defective mobile phone ie Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) and Opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) as cost and compensation to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite party No.1 and 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% for the whole sum till realization. After complying the Order the opposite party No.1 is at liberty to take back the defective mobile phone from opposite party No.3.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 17th day of June 2016.
Date of Filing: 02.03.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sam George. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Cash Bill. Dt:18.04.2015.
A2(1). Copy of Job Sheet. Dt:24.06.2015.
A2(2). Copy of Job Sheet. Dt:31.07.2015.
A2(3). Copy of Job Sheet. Dt:26.11.2015.
A2(4). Job Sheet. Dt:28.12.2015.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
