Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/1317/2016

Sri. Suresh.S, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sun Technologies, Micromax Care, - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 28.09.2016

                                                      Disposed on: 16.11.2017

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1317/2016

DATED THIS THE 16^TH NOVEMBER OF 2017

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Suresh.S,

S/o Shanmugam,

aged about 32 years,

R/at no.443/10,

8^th main, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru-40

 

By Adv.Sri.N.Nagaraju    

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. M/s Sun Technologies,

Micromax care,

No.327/328-10,

Widia Layout,

Chandra layout main road, Vijayanagar,

Bengaluru-40.

Rep by its authorized signatory Sri.Jagadish.R

 

2. On Track Mobiles & Laptops, situated at no.347,

Dr.Rajkumar road,

12^th main, 6^th block,

Rajajinagar,

Bengaluru-10.

Rep by its authorized signatory Sri.Arun

 

3. Micromax Informatics,

Customer Care,

Micromax House,

90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Gurgaon District,

Haryana,

India-122015.

 

• Ex-parte

 

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT

SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint filed by the Complainant against Opposite parties no.1 to 3 (here in after referred as Ops) to direct the Ops to provide with a new Micro Max Mobile Phone: P680 Copper 911424000276147, Miwarranty no.16080216269mi valued at Rs.9,300/- immediately and to pay the damages of Rs.20,000/- as sought for in the legal notice and also any other relief for which the Complainant is entitled to.   

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that the Complainant is a businessman and was very much in need of a Tab Phone for his business purpose. Hence, he has purchased Micro Max Mobile Phone: P680 Copper 911424000276147, Miwarranty no.16080216269mi on 05.07.2016, under invoice no.SI/1617/RAJI/806, invoice time:17:26:37 for an amount of Rs.9,300/- from On Track Mobiles & Laptops, situated at no.347, Dr.Rajkumar road, 12^th main, 6^th block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10 i.e. Op.no.2.  After receipt of the said tab phone, the Complainant was unable to use the mobile handset as there was a key problem. Hence he approached the dealer i.e. Op.no.2 and explained the defect found therein. The Op.no.2 has asked Complainant to approach the service centre i.e. Op.no.1. Accordingly he approached the Op.no.1 and explained the problem. Accordingly the Op.no.1 taken the handset for repair saying that no job sheet is required as it is minor problem with power key. Accordingly directed the Complainant to collect the handset after 2 days. After 2 days, the Complainant approached the Op.no.1 but it was not repaired. It is the Op.no.1 who has promised to get it repaired but he did not keep up its promise. Then on 25.07.2016, the Op.no.1 handed over the handset to the Complainant saying that the power key has been changed and now there is no problem with handset. Accordingly he has received the said handset. When the Complainant started to use the handset, he found the same problem. Once again he approached the Op.no.2 with the warranty and explained the problem faced by him and requested to take back the handset and to give him a fresh handset. The Op.no.2 evaded his liability to give a new handset, as the Op.no.1 who is responsible for the defect in the handset as per the company rules. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Op.no.1 with a defect of the handset and requested to take back the defect handset and provide him with fresh handset. But the Op.no.1 without any valid reasons or grounds made the Complainant to wait in its shop premises. On the assurance of the Op.no.1, he had waited another 2 or 3 days but there was no any response. Thereafter the Complainant has lodged the complaint before Op.no.3 in respect of the problem faced by him. Thereafter the Complainant has approached the Op.no.1 on 02.08.2016 and has requested to provide him with a fresh hand set as agreed by Op.no.1. But the response of the Op.no.1 was that it will repair the handset and will not replace with a new hand set. It is also the case of the Complainant that Op.no.1 has prepared job sheet on 02.08.2016 stating that the said micro max mobile hand set is taken for repair of “On and Off Power Key” for which the Complainant has opposed to take the job card as from day one he is facing problem. It is also the case of the Complainant that he being the patriot, purchased the handset which is Indian made thinking to giving importance to the Indian product and to promote the Indian products. He had great hopes with the product when he bought from Op.no.2. Believing the words of Op.no.2 got the handset which is very good and it has got good reviews from the customers and it has warranty. Hence he being the consumer and there is deficiency of service in respect of giving faulty handset. Hence he prays to allow the complaint and direct the Ops to provide with a new Micro Max Mobile Phone: P680 Copper 911424000276147, Miwarranty no.16080216269mi valued at Rs.9,300/- immediately and to pay the damages of Rs.20,000/- as sought for in the legal notice and also any other relief for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          3. On receipt of the Complainant’s notice has been ordered to issue to the Ops.no.1 to 3. Inspite of notice duly served on Ops did not appear before this forum. Hence placed ex-parte.    

         

          4. To substantiate his case, the Complainant filed his affidavit evidence. The documents produced by the Complainant are Ex-A1 to A7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and also placed reliance on the written arguments submitted by him.   

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)d of the CP Act ?
2. Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service by the Ops ? ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for ?
4. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative.

Point no.2: In the Affirmative.  

Point no.3: The Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for

Point no.4: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1 & 2: Since these points are interconnected, hence we have taken these 2 points together for our discussion just to avoid the repetition of the facts.

 

          8. The brief facts of the case are already narrated in the foregoing paragraphs. In the instant case, though the notice was served on the Ops, they did not appear to put forth their say in the matter. It appears that inspite of the notice served on them, they avoided to appear before the forum and watching the proceedings sitting somewhere else. The contents of the complaint as well as the contents of the sworn affidavit are not subjected to the counter say of the Ops. At this juncture this forum has no other go except to believe the version of the Complainant as it is true and correct. In this context, we placed reliance on the contents of the purchase receipt of the said tab mobile handset marked as Ex-A1 which goes to show that the Complainant has purchased the said handset for Rs.9,300/-. Ex-A2 is the job card, Ex-A3 is the legal notice. To the said legal notice, the Ops did not respond to it by way of reply. Ex-A7 are the email contents. Looking to the available materials on record, it goes to show that the said tab phone handset which has been purchased by the Complainant from the Op.no.2 is found to be defective. In this context, the Complainant approached the Op.no.2 with regard to the defects found, but the said Op.no.2 as well as the Op.no.1 & 3 gave evasive answers and tried to evade the responsibility. In this context the Complainant has already issued the legal notice/Ex-A3. Inspite of the receipt of the said legal notice, there was no any response either from the Op.no.2 or from the Op.no.1 & 3. At this juncture, the presumption can be raised, as the Op.no.2 as well as the Op.no.1 & 3 tried to evade their responsibility to fulfill the request of the Complainant either to give the new handset or else to return the price amount of Rs.9,300/-. We are of the opinion that it is needless to discuss in detail as the Complainant is found to be a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)d of CP Act. Further the act of the Op.no.1 to 3 is amounts to deficiency of service in respect of to replace the new set by obtaining the faulty set of said handset or else to pay the purchase value of Rs.9,300/-. Hence we are of the opinion that the Op.no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service, but the liability is fastened on the Op.no.2 to replace the new set of tab mobile handset of the Micro Max Mobile company by obtaining the faulty handset or else to pay the purchase value of Rs.9,300/-. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 & 2 in the affirmative.  

 

9. Point no.3: In view of findings on point no.1 & 2, the Complainant is entitled either to have a new tab mobile handset of the Micro Max Mobile company or else he is entitled for an amount of Rs.9,300/- from the Op.no.2 with interest at the rate of 8% which is in terms of the compensation. Accordingly we answered the point no.3.  

 

10. Point no.4: In the result we passed the following.

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant u/s 12 of the CP Act is hereby allowed.

 

          2. The Op.no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service in respect of the tab mobile handset of the Micro Max Mobile company, but we fastened the liability on Op.no.2 directing him to replace the similar model tab mobile handset of the Micro max mobile company as described in para no.3 of the complaint by obtaining the faulty set or else he will have to pay the purchase value of Rs.9,300/- to the Complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          3. With regard to the compensation in respect of mental agony etc., are concerned, we imposed the interest at the rate of 8% on the purchase amount and also the cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-.  

          4. The Op.no.2 is directed to comply this order within six weeks from today, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 16^th November of 2017).

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.S.Suresh, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Original invoice bill dtd.05.07.16
Ex-A2	Original Job sheet dtd.02.08.16
Ex-A3	Legal notice dtd.06.08.16
Ex-A4	3 original Postal receipts
Ex-A5	Post office track consignment copies
Ex-A6	2 original Postal acknowledgements
Ex-A7	Email conversations 23.08.16 to 31.08.16

 

 

 

(SURESH.D)   MEMBER

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT