BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM  (Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986)  MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
 

 PRESENT: Sri Y. Aravinda Reddy, Spl Judge for SCs & STs (POA)                 Act cum – V Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge / FAC President

               Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

 Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member

Friday, the 15^TH day of  JUNE, 2012

CC. No. 72 of 2011

Between:

D. Dhanraj S/o Pochaiah,

Aged: 29 years, Occ: Teacher,

R/o H.No. 5-8-60, Kalwakunta,

Sangareddy, District Medak – 502 001.                               ….Complainant

And

1. M/s Sangeetha  Mobiles (P) Ltd.,

Shop No. 5-2-22/C, Mahesh Chambers,

Saikrupa Nagar, Main Road, Sangareddy.

District : Medak – 502 001,

A.P. State Represented through its Manager.

2. Sri Technologies (authorized service centre for Micromax Mobiles),

Maharaja Complex, Kalwakunta Road,

New Bus Stand, Sangareddy,

Medak District – 502 001, A.P. State.

3. Micromax Informatics Limited,

9/52/1, Plot No. 21/14, Block-A,

Nariana Industrial Area,

Phase-II, New Delhi – 110015,

Represented through its person-in-charge.                   …..opposite parties

          This complaint has come for final hearing on 08.05.2012 before us in the presence of Complainant in person and Sri M/s. M.K. Nizamuddin and Md. Mahaboob Ali, Advocates for opposite party No. 2, opposite party No . 1 & 3 are called absent, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

1.              This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant (a teacher) alleging that he brought a Micromax Transceiver (Mobile handset) 3G GSM bearing Model No. A60 bearing IMEI No. 910556000051920 from the shop of opposite party No. 1 on 15.12.2010 for a consideration of Rs. 6,999/- vide invoice No. SI/SAN/1048. The above transceiver is a touch screen model with a warranty of 12 months against the transceiver and six months against the accessories. The handset is manufactured and marketed by opposite party No. 3, while opposite party No. 2 as the authorized service centre at Sangareddy.

              He further submits that with in a few months of purchase of the handset, the touch screen was not functioning and the complaint was addressed to opposite party No. 1, who in turn advised him to approach opposite party No. 2.

               On 30.07.2011 the complainant handed over the Transceiver to opposite party No. 2 vide customer job card No. 2265591. Although four months have passed they failed to return the transceiver to him.

                   Vexed with the attitude of opposite party No. 2, he sent a notice to opposite party No.1 on 13.10.2011 through registered post with a request to arrange for the return of the transceiver with due repairs.

                   The complainant suspects that the transceiver might not he repairable and that is the reason opposite party No. 2 did not return the handset. But it is the responsibility of opposite party No. 1 & 3 to replace with a new one since the defect happened with in the warranty period.

                   It is submitted that due to non-availability of the transceiver (handset), the complainant could not avail the benefit of using the mobile and could not speak to anybody for the last four months. All this occurred purely due to the negligent services rendered by the opposite parties.

                   These are the facts which constitute cause of action which lastly arose on 13.10.2011 when the complaint made a written demand to the opposite parties to rectify the defect in the transceiver. Hence the present complaint with a prayer to replace the transceiver in dispute with a brand new one or in alternate refund the amount of Rs. 6,999/- together with interest @ 18 % p.a. from 30.07.2011 and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and costs.

2.                Opposite party served with notice on 13.12.2011 but failed to file their counter. Although the case was adjourned several times, they failed to appear before the forum. Opposite party No. 2 merely filed their vakalat through their counsel, but did not file counter.

3.         Complainant submitted his written arguments and exhibited documents A1 to A8.

4.               The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so is the complainant entitled to any relief?

Point:

                   Ex.A1 – is the invoice issued by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Mr. D. Dhanraj.

                                      Details of Invoice: -

Mr. D. Dhanraj                                                     TIN: 28598883952

HYDERABAD                                                        Invoice No. SI/SAN/1048

Phone No. 9494424744                                        Invoice Date: 15/Dec/2010

                                                                             Phone No. 8096043666

                   Date of purchase is 15.12.2010 and he has paid Rs. 6,999/-.

                   Terms and conditions printed below state – that warranty is provided by the manufacturers and not by opposite party No. 1.

                   For ‘after sales service’ please contact the service centre.

                  Ex.A1 – is the invoice where it is stamped manufacturer’s warranty and Ex.A2 the customer job cards, has detailed terms and conditions. Condition Number 15 – states that: I “For after repair warranty customer will have to produce copy of invoice (mandatory). Within warranty if the set is repaired by local mechanic then the warranty will be declared void” – and this is supported by the invoice.

                   The opposite party No. 2 have chosen not to make any representation and have not produced or filed any evidence to support their case – In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant.

                   In the result the complaint is allowed, we direct the opposite parties to replace the transceiver in dispute with a brand new one or in the alternate refund the amount of Rs. 6,999/- and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the hardship and mental agony endured by the complainant in the absence of a mobile phone. Time for compliance : one month.

            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 15^th day of JUNE, 2012.

              Sd/-                             Sd/-                               Sd/-

   FAC PRESIDENT         LADY MEMBER                MALE MEMER

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

-NIL-                                                                               -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

         Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                                Sd/-

 FAC PRESIDENT                  LADY MEMBER                  MALE MEMER

Copy to

1)     The Complainant

2)     The Opposite parties

3)     Spare copy