Order No. 27 Dt. 14. 09.2017
The complaint case u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 in short is that she purchased a MICROMAX mobile handset from authorized seller (O.P. No.1) at Malda on 26.03.2015 at the price of Rs. 4499/-. Within a few days since purchase the said set started disfunctioning and became unusable. She then and then contacted the O.P. No.1, the seller who advised the complainant to go to O.P. No.2, the authorized service centre of MICROMAX set at Malda. The said service centre after some little patchwork delivered the set to the complainant with assurance of no disturbance in future. Thereafter within some days the said mobile set started disfunctioning and for further repairment she paid Rs.250/- to the service centre on 24/08/2015. All these problems of the set was within a warranty period. Atlast the said mobile set become totally unusable. The complainant was compelled to handover the set to O.P. No.2 on 03/09/2015 for good repairment or to replace and since then in spite of repeated approach by the complainant to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 neither she get return of the said mobile set in good condition nor the O.P. No.1 replace the same. As a result the complainant being a bonafide consumer has suffered miserably and for this reason she claims total compensation of Rs. 7000/-.
The case was admitted on its merit and O.P. Nos 1 and 2 was sent due notice. O.P. No.1 did not contest the case and O.P. No.2 has challenged the case of the complainant and contended that he is not the seller of the mobile set nor the staff appointed by the MICROMAX Company. The O.P. No.2 only acts as a service provider for repair of any mobile set on the basis of the commission.
The further case of the O.P. No.2 is that the said handset mobile set has completely repaired. The defect of the mobile set after receiving reasonable charge of Rs.250/- for repairing cost that the complainant is not ready and willing to get return of the mobile set rather she demands a new mobile set which is under the domain of O.P. No.1.
::POINTS FOR DECISION::
- Is the complainant a ‘Consumer’ ?
- Was there any deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Nos.1 & 2 ?
- Is the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
All the points are taken up togetherly for discussion and consideration.
Here in this case the complainant has moved her own case without appointing any legal representative or appointing any lawyer. She conducted her case personally and undoubtedly she is a bonafide consumer as she purchased a mobile set from an authorized seller of MICROMAX mobile set at Malda.
According to the case of the O.P. No. 2 the said mobile set became defective in many occasions due to manufacturing defect and the complainant has approached the O.P. No.1, the authorized seller for redressal of her troubles and to remove the defects of the mobile set. The O.P. No.1 being an authorized seller only advised the complainant to contact with the service centre, i.e. O.P. No.2 for repairment. O.P. 2 in two to three occasions has tried to remove the defect and on 24/08/2015 in lieu of charge of Rs. 250/- repaired the set and mentioned in the job sheet as battery not charging we know very well that the price of the mobile set includes the price of the battery and it is expected that the battery of the mobile set should not be replaced within a couple of months from the date of purchase when the authorized seller sales the mobile set including the battery. It is also established in this case that the said mobile set is still lying in the custody of O.P.-2 and the complainant has refused to get return of the said set as she apprehends that the mobile is not in a good condition and she would face further trouble if it is not replaced. The O.P. No.2 is the authorized service centre who do their work on the basis of commission and the complainant is not the ‘Consumer’ under O.P. No.2 directly. The relationship of seller and consumer or manufacturer and consumer does not exist in this case between the complainant and O.P. No.2. The manufacturer of the MICROMAX mobile set is not included as a party in this case by the complainant. She has impleaded the authorized seller of MICROMAX Company. Here the buyer and seller relationship is in existence between the complainant and O.P. No.1.
Certainly, there is deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.1 towards the complainant.
Thus all the points are hereby settled accordingly.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that the complaint case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by Smt. Amiya Mishra is hereby allowed on contest against O.P. No.2 and ex parte against O.P. No.1.
O.P. No. 2 is hereby asked to handover the mobile set in good and functioning condition to the complainant after procuring a receipt from the complainant and would furnish the same before the Forum within 15 days of procuring the receipt. The O.P. No. 1 is hereby asked to pay compensation of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant for mental harassment and agony as suffered by the complainant within one month from this day failing which 12% p.a. as interest shall be effected over the compensation money.
The petitioner will be at liberty to put the award in execution if the order of the Forum is not complied with.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be sent to the ex parte O.P. by registered post with A.D.
