This case coming on 03-07-2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri M.VENKATA RAMANA, Advocate for the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party being exparte, Sri.D.N.MURTHY, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.The complainant asks the forum to pass an award in her favour and against the Opposite Parties for;

a) Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to hand over cell phone bearing model no.A10000005486FB with good working condition or hand over new cell phone with the same model

or

b) Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,700/- with accrued interest @ 24% p.a., to the Complainant.

c) Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages mental agony caused to the complainant.

d) Pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses spent by the Complainant.

e) Pass such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the complainant against the 3^rd Opposite Party was dismissed as the complainant failed to take steps against it.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the complainant as it was set exparte and remained exaprte.

4.The 2^nd Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the forum to dismiss the complaint.

5.The case of the complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that the 1^st Opposite Party is doing all companies Cell Phone sales, Accessories and repairs of cell phones business in the name and style of M/s New Look Cell Point. The 2^nd Opposite Party  is the authorized dealer of Micromax Mobile/Cell Phones Service/Repairs Centre. The 3^rd OP is manufacturer of Micromax Mobile Phones. On 25-05-2011, the complainant purchased Micromax Mobile phone bearing model NO.A10000005486FB vide EAN-8904132420281 for an amount of Rs.1,700/- from the 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party had also issued valid receipt bearing no.657 dated 25-05-2011 and the warranty period is 12 months. After purchasing the said cell phone, it worked hardly only five days and thereafter it did not work and immediately the complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party and informed about non working of said phone and the 1^st Opposite Party has taken the said phone from the complainant and informed that it would take two or three days only for repairing the same and at the request of the 1^st Opposite Party, the complainant handed over the said phone and after five days, the complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party. Then the 1^st Opposite Party stated that the aforesaid phone was having manufacturing defect and requested to approach the 2^nd OP. Then on 11-06-2011, the complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party and handed over the said phone. After receiving the said phone, the 2^nd Opposite Party stated that there was no manufacturing defect and further stated that on the same day evening on Monday would give the said phone to the Complainant, and after receiving the said phone, the 2^nd Opposite Party issued customer job card bearing No.1496213 and informed that the 2^nd OP would be calling the Complainant after repairing the same. But after receiving the said phone there was no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party. Therefore, on 13-06-2011, the complainant called the 2^nd Opposite Party several times but there was no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party and even did not answer to the complainant’s call. Therefore, the complainant called a land line number. The said land line phone number was out of service. Again on 14-06-2011 and 15-06-2011 the complainant called the said cell number continuously. But, there was no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party and it clearly shows how the 2^nd Opposite Party maintains the relationship with the customer; though the 2^nd Opposite Party gave the said two phone numbers, it did not lift the complainant’s call and this is nothing but deficiency of service and the complainant further stated that since there was no response from the 2^nd OP, on 15-06-2011 evening, the complainant personally approached the 2^nd Opposite Party  and requested to hand over the above said phone to her. But one way or other, the 2^nd Opposite Party workers gave arrogant replies and stated that it would take two or three months time and further stated that the 2^nd OP workers not yet touched the said phone. In fact at the time of taking the above said phone, the 2^nd Opposite Party workers stated that on the same day or on the next day, the phone would be returned to complainant and further stated that there was no problem for the said phone, but the 2^nd Opposite Party changed their version on 15-06-2011 and gave arrogant replies and this is nothing but deficiency of service on their part and also cheating and the complainant also stated that though the land-line phone was not working, intentionally the 2^nd Opposite Party gave the said number to complainant only to cheat her and though the complainant called number of times to 2^nd Opposite Party’s cell number there was no response. Therefore, due to 2^nd Opposite Party’s arrogant reply and behavioiur, the complainant suffered mentally and physically. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to damages from the Opposite Parties. As the Opposite Parties did not hand over the above phone and also gave arrogant reply, the complainant got issued a registered laywer’s notice dated 08-06-2011 to the Opposite Parties, demanding them to hand over the aforesaid cell phone with good condition or to refund an amount of Rs.1,700/- with interest along with damages to an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties received the said notice and acknowledged the same. But, there was no response from them. The 3^rd Opposite Party refused to receive the above said notice. This clearly shows that there is deficiency of service. Even though the complainant sent lawyer’s notice to Opposite Parties that she would take legal action against them, there is no response from the Opposite parties which clearly shows the attitude of the Opposite Parties. Hence, this compliant.

6.   The complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support her claim. Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant.

7.   On the other hand, the 2^nd OP contended, as can be seen from its counter, that after filing of this complaint, the 2^nd Opposite Party handed over the cell instrument to the complainant and as he received the same with due satisfaction, the first prayer of the complaint is complied; the Opposite Party stated that they repaired the instrument within the time and the allegation, that the Opposite Party  did not give any response to the complainant and the Opposite Party  did not lift the complainant call and the same amounts to deficiency in service, is absolutely false and the allegations, that this Opposite Party  gave arrogant reply is absolutely false.  The Opposite Party further stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party  and the complaint is devoid of merits.

8.   The 2^nd Opposite Party did not file any affidavit or written arguments. No exhibits are marked for the 2^nd Opposite party.

9.   After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased the cell phone in question on 25-05-2011 for Rs.1,700/-. Exhibit A1 is the cash bill which shows these particulars. But within 17 days, the mobile became dead and the complainant gave the mobile for repair to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 11-06-2011. Exhibit A2 customer job card is given by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. But nothing had transpired and the complainant was forced to send a Lawyer’s Notice (Exhibit A3) on 18-06-2011 to all the three Opposite Parties. As there was no reply, the complainant promptly approached this Forum on 11-07-2011 and presented this complaint. Subsequently, during the pendency of the complaint, the 2^nd Opposite Party handed over the cell instrument to the Complainant, stating that it was repaired and stated this in its counter which was filed on 02-11-2011. But the complainant found the instrument not in order and gave it back to the 2^nd Opposite Party on the same day i.e., 2-11-2011 and filed a memo to this effect on 17-11-2011. All this shows that the mobile contains inherent defect and cannot be repaired and so, useless. In these circumstances, it can be concluded that the Opposite Party sold the mobile phone, which was not working, to the complainant and caused her much trouble. Moreover, though the mobile was giving trouble to the complainant within days of its purchase, the OPs did not do anything worthwhile whether to repair the said phone or to refund the purchase price to the complainant. Moreover, the memo filed by Complainant on 17-11-2011 clearly shows that the said mobile is irrepairable. In the circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the purchase price of the mobile with interest from the date of purchase till the date of actual realization. Moreover, the Opposite Parties failed to either repair or refund the amount to date, it amounts to unfair trade practice –cum- deficiency of service on their part and the complainant is entitled to suitable compensation. As the complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the unfair trade practice cum deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, she is entitled to costs of this complaint too.

10.  In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: 1) to refund purchase price of the Mobile i.e., Rs.1,700/- (Rupees one thousand and seven hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of purchase i.e., 25-05-2011 till the date of actual realization; 2) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one Thousand five Hundred only), and 3) to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant.

Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

However, the case against the 3^rd OP is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on  this the 21^st July, 2014.

Sd/-                                        Sd/-

President                                  M.Member

Documents Marked

For the Complainant:-

Sd/-                                        Sd/-

President                                   M.Member