1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax handset Model No.A-102, IMEI No.911396406512070 from OP.1 vide Receipt No.156 dt.13.5.2015 for Rs.7200/- but after one month of purchase the set became hang again and again for which the complainant approached OP.2 as per advice of OP.1. It is submitted that on approach the OP.2 repaired the set then and there but after 2 months the same problem returned with set heat and poor battery backup. On approach the OP.2 with defective handset, it repaired the set but did not issue job sheet both the times. It is also submitted that again in the month of December the problems returned with internet problem and the complainant found that without use of internet, balance was deducting. On approach to OP.2 over phone, he remained silent. In the month of April, 2016 the handset became dead and the OP.2 received the set for repair but on several approach he did not return the set with some plea or the other. Thus alleging defect in handset and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.7200/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.5.2015 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 filed counter through his A/R denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that there is no allegation of any nature in the complaint petition against OP.3. The OP contended that it has no knowledge about the sale of alleged product to the complainant by OP.1 and the complainant’s approach to OP.2 for the alleged defects in the handset and the Ops 1 & 2 have not intimated the OP.3 regarding present case. It is also further contended that the complainant has not filed any document in support of his case showing that the alleged handset was having inherent manufacturing defect for which it needs replacement. With these and other contentions denying any fault on its part, the OP OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the OP.3 and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case the complainant stated that he purchased a Micromax handset model A-102 for Rs.7200/- vide Invoice No. 156 dt.13.5.2015 from OP.1 being manufactured by OP.3 duly supported by invoice granted by OP.1. The complainant stated that after one month of its use the set became hang and did not function properly for which the complainant as per advice of the dealer handed over the set to OP No.2 who after a brief repair returned the set stating that the problem is over. Again after two months the hang problem returned and set became heat besides low battery backup for which the set was handed over to OP.2 and the OP.2 returned the set stating that the problems would not come again but did not issue job sheet on both the occasions. It is submitted that in the month of December, 2015 all the problems returned besides internet problem causing deduction of balance without any use. The set was handed over to OP.2 who repaired the set but the complainant suffered as before. The complainant stated that in the month of April, 2016 the set became dead and the OP.2 received set on 06.04.2016 with job sheet. From that date the set is lying unprepared with OP.2 and OP.2 pays a deaf ear to the grievance of the complainant.
5. The OP No.3 in his counter stated that it has no knowledge about the sale and repair of the alleged set by Ops 1 & 2 respectively as none of them has informed about the facts. The OP further stated that no expert opinion has been filed in this case in order to prove that the set suffered manufacturing defect. While considering both the issues, it was ascertained that the OP.1 is the authorized retail outlet and the OP No.2 is the authorized service Centre of OP.3. It is the duty of Ops to ensure connectivity between them regarding any transaction or service matters of their products. If OP.3 has no interest to know all those things then it can be said that the OP.3 is adopting “take it and leave it” tactics in his business.
6. Further the OP.3 stated that the complainant has not furnished any expert report in order to prove that the product has got some manufacturing defect. In this connection it can be said that the OP.2 is the ASC of OP.3, armed with experts. When the OP.2, known as expert could not bring the handset in to order in spite of repeated efforts, the set is proved to have manufacturing defect and hence in our opinion, no further expert is required to opine on the alleged defects in the handset.
7. In absence of counter and participation of Ops 1 & 2 we lost opportunity to know anything from them and as such the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged. It was ascertained that the complainant could not use the set comfortably due to such multiple defects and in our opinion; he is entitled to get back the cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase. It is found that the defective handset is with OP. No.2. Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for the fault of Ops 2 & 3 for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in his favor will meet the ends of justice.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.3 is directed to refund Rs.7200/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e.13.5.2015 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The OP.3 is further directed to collect the defective handset from OP No.2.
(to dict.)
