COMPLAINT FILED ON:17.01.2012

DISPOSED ON:06.06.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

6^th DAY OF JUNE 2012

       PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY                PRESIDENT                        

                          SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                  MEMBER

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant in person filed this complaint seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to refund the amount paid for the purchase of the hand set Rs.3,000/-, to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and further sum of Rs.25,000/- for the mental strain along with costs of the proceeding.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

The complainant purchased the handset Micromax Q7 GSM 900/1800 Mhz invoice No.SI.GNR/6022 invoice dt.16.08.2011 from OP2.   From the day of purchasing the handset the same is not properly working.   One or the other problems relating to the software were repeatedly accrued and when enquired with the OP2, he was harassed in terms of time and money.   The complainant approached OP1 service center.  OP1 also made to wander between OP1 & 2, finally in the service center the handset had to undergo repair for three times.  The repair was not satisfactory.    Because of this the complainant lost his concentration in studies, lost his habit of regular reading.   The company service center has repaired the said handset thrice.   During the third time of the repair the complainant was told that the mother board is changed and other related problems were attended.   The honesty of the service center is suspected. It was difficult for the complainant to go to the service center for three times and get the repaired done.   Thus the complainant is seeking for refund of the amount with compensation, the handset purchased for Rs.3,000/- from OP2 is defective, the same is not working.

3.   OP2 remained ex-parte.

4.   OP1 filed version contending that they have received the handset 3 times for repair. The problem observed was mainly due to virus in the handset, probably because of internet use,   Other complaint of battery backup was found satisfactory.   However the complainant has given again for the battery backup problem.   Therefore, they have escalated the complaint to Mcromax higher level (L3) service center where it was last repaired.   The complainant has checked the handset while collecting the same from the services center.   The complainant had written letter 03.01.2012 asking for the refund.  However they have requested the complainant to log the handset in service center for replacement and also they have forwarded the letter to resolve the issue.   They understand that the Manager called the complainant and requested him to log the handset in service center for further action.  However the complainant did not turn up.    They have also replied to the letter of the complainant OP1 is only an authorized service center with responsibility.  Therefore the refund of the amount is outside the scope of the responsibility.  They can request Micromax to replace the handset if the complainant agrees for the same.  Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.    The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence.   The proprietor of OP1 filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.

6.   Arguments on both sides heard.

7.   The points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

           Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?

           Point No.3:-To What order?

8.               We record our findings on the above points:

      Point No.1:-Affirmative

    Point No.2:-Affirmative in part

    Point No.3:-As per final order.

R E A S O N S

9. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 16.08.2011 the complainant purchased the handset Micromax Q7 GSM 900/1800 Mhz from OP2 the Authorized Dealer by paying an amount of Rs.3,000/- as per the invoice dt.16.08.2011.   After the purchase of the handset, the same was found not working to the satisfaction of the complainant.   The complainant had taken the handset thrice to the service center OP1.  But the same was not made to work properly.   As a result, the complainant could not make use of the handset purchased.   Thus it becomes clear that the handset supplied by OP2 is having a manufacturing defect.   As a result the complainant was not able to use the same.    OP1 is only service center whatever the service that was required to be provided is attended by it, even then the handset could not be made use of by the complainant.   The very fact of supply of the defective handset by OP2 the authorized dealer, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            The complainant through his letter dt.03.01.2012 addressed to OP1 demanded for refund of the amount paid for the handset.   For the said letter, OP1 has replied stating that they have forwarded the letter to Micromax and they have instructed the complainant to log the handset in the service center for necessary service check.   If the complainant wants refund then to approach Micromax information limited, they have no authority to refund the amount.   It may be noted OP1 is only service center.   As such, the responsibility to refund the amount lies with the Dealer OP2.   OP1 cannot be held responsible for the supply of defective handset.   OP2 being the authorized dealer is liable to refund the amount.   The complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment on account of handset being not worked properly.   OP2 is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.500/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- while refunding the amount of Rs.3,000/- paid towards cost of the handset.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part.  

OP2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,000/- cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs.500/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant and collect the handset from the complainant. 

The complaint against OP1 stands dismissed

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of this order.

        Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the  6^th day of JUNE-2012.)

MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

Cs.