Date of filing :- 03/06/2015.
Date of Order:- 23/11/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 2015
Prince Kumar Dash, aged about 19(nineteen) years, S/o Chandramani Dash, resident of Ambapali, Ward No. 17, Po/Ps/tahasil/Dist.-Bargarh..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
M/s Shukal Computer through its Proprietor, situated at Near Saukhin Kalakar Sangha, Main Road, Bargarh, P.o/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.
Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Pin-122015, Tel +91-124 4811000.
M/s. S.S.Point, Near Sudha Clinic, N.H. 6, Bargarh, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri G.Mallick Advocate with other Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.23/11/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member:-
The Complaint relates to deficiency in service described under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The Subject matter of the Complaint is described below.
The Complainant is a permanent resident of Ambapali, W. No. 17 (seventeen), Bargarh which comes under the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Opposite Party No.1(one) M/s Sukla Computers, Bargarh is the local dealer/seller of the Micromax Mobile handset where as Opposite Party No.2(two) is the manufacturer of the product and Opposite Party No.3(three) is the service center for the said brand of mobile hand set.
The Petitioner by virtue of a valid invoice bearing No. 1235 purchased one Micromax Mobile had set of Model No.A-O69 IMEI NO.91136780, Battery No. 6422087 on Dt. 25/11/2014 for an amount of Rs. 5,200/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred)only from the Opposite Party No.1(one). That after five days some defects found in the handset. The handset did not function properly. The Petitioner handed over the mobile set to the Opposite Party for rectification of defect in the mobile handset and after retaining the mobile set for two months the Opposite party returned the set un-repaired with a clear remark of his inability to repair the mobile set further.
That for such attitude of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered from mental agony, harassment and pecuniary loss. That selling defective product and deny to provide service after sale and clearly a case of unfair trade practice so also deficiency in providing service to the Complainant.
The Complainant seeks the redressal of his grievance before the forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of the Mobile handset i.e. Rs. 5,200/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred)only along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for litigation expenses to him.
The Complainant in support his contention has relied open the xerox copies of the following documents.
Retail/Tax invoice being Sl. No. 2345 (one sheet).
Warranty Card (one sheet).
Job sheet Dt.18/04/2015 of M/s S.S.Point, Sudha Clinic, Bargarh (One sheet).
Notices were set to the Opposite Parties from the court with due procedure of law but none of the Opposite Parties chose to appear before the Forum to put forth their defense, hence set ex-parte in the Complaint and the Complaint was posted for ex-parte hearing.
Gone through the Complaint petition throughly, perused the documents and heard the oral submission of the Complainant, the Forum found the points to the decided in the Complaint as follows:-
Whether the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties as per provision 2(1)d(1) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?
Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for negligence in providing service to the Complainant ?
The Complainant has paid the cost of the mobile handset by virtue of a valid receipt Dt.25/11/2014 to the Opposite Party No.1(one) which is the consideration money as per the concept of the Consumer for purchasing goods and the mobile handset has been purchased by the Complainant for his own use. So owing to the provision u/s 2 (I) d (I) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties. The point decided aforesaid.
The Job card issued by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in favour of the Complainant reveals that the Complainant has deposited the mobile handset before the Opposite Party No.3(three) i.e. the servicing centre of the Opposite Parties company on Dt.18/04/2015 for the rectification of defect found in the mobile set. The Job card further reveals that the problem reported in the mobile set as to “Charging/Battery no charging” and by then the hand set is delivered to the Complainant on Dt.30/05/2015. As per clause-2 of warranty card the warranty is applicable on the product for twelve months from the date of Original Purchase and Six months for accessories included in the mobile device sales package. The Complainant then registered Complaint and surrendered the defective Mobile set before the Opposite Party No.3(three) after nearly about four months of date of original purchase which is well within the warranty period granted by the manufacturing company. More over the Job card does not reveal in any way as to what service provided to the Complainant for rectification of defect accrued in the mobile handset. Be it mentioned here that neither of the three Opposite Parties (out of home two Opposite parties are from local town) where the mobile handset has been purchased preferred to appear before the forum to defend the allegation and claim lodged against them. All these activities and conduct of the opposite Parties so also their non appearance before the forum is a clear indication of their negligence in providing Consumer Service to the Complainant. Hence in the instant circumstance the Opposite Parties are held responsible for the deficiency in providing after sale service to the Complainant. The points decided as above.
In the afore mentioned discussion, owing to the provision enunciated in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the forum order as follows.
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed to pay, jointly and severally, the cost of the Mobile handset Rs. 5,200/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred)only and Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant with in thirty day from the date of Order i.e. Dt. 23/11/2016 failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% (twelve percent ) per annum till the actual payment.
The Complainant is directed to handover the defective Mobile handset immediately to the Opposite Parties as the case may be after the receiving of the awarded amount from the Opposite Parties.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
