Complaint filed on: 07-03-2013

                                                      Disposed on: 02-08-2014

BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052           

C.C.No.538/2013

DATED THIS THE 2^nd AUGUST 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -   

                                                U.K.Srinivas,

                                                No.4, 4^th A Cross, Vivekananda

Nagar, Kattriguppa Main Road, BSK III Stage, Bangalore-85 

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. MICROMAX Informatics Ltd, Plot no.21/14, Block A,

Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-28

1. The Proprietor,

M/s. Univercell Telecommunication (I) Pvt. Ltd, No.278, 6^th Cross, 2^nd Block, Srinivasanagar, BSK 1^st Stage, Bangalore-50

1. The Proprietor,

M/s. M.S.N. Communication, No.164, Keshava complex, 1^st Floor, Shop no.2, 27^th Cross, Opp. Yediyur bus stop, Near Bajaj popular show room, Jayanagar 6^th block, Bangalore-82  

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to replace the existing defective mobile hand set with the new hand set and to pay Rs.10,000=00 for mental agony suffered for the last one year from the date of purchase of the mobile hand set.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

          The complainant purchased Dual SIM QWERTY mobile handset of Micromax company model Q7 from 2^nd OP by paying Rs.2,600=00. Thereafter complainant found battery problem and he brought to the notice of the same to 2^nd OP and handed over the mobile hand set to 3^rd OP in the month of June 2012. Thereafter though complainant handed over the mobile handset to 3^rd OP for nearly three times in the same year of its purchase for conducting repairs the same problems continued and hence complainant informed the same to the 3^rd OP that he wants replacement of the defective mobile hand set with a new defect free hand set since it is under warranty. For which the 3^rd OP told that, they will send it to manufacturer i.e. 1^st OP and accordingly complainant deposited the said mobile handset with 3^rd OP on 2-1-2013 and the same was acknowledged under job sheet no.R1301FKTR2611627. On 31-1-2013 3^rd OP telephoned to the complainant stating that mobile hand set is ready to take deliver and problems were solved, but after taking delivery the complainant again noticed same problems. Hence complainant wrote a letter through RPAD on 13-2-2013 to 1^st OP seeking replacement of the defective handset giving time for 15 days, but till date OPs neither cared to replace the defective mobile hand set nor refunded the amount. Hence, the present complaint is filed.  

3. After service of the notice, the 1^st OP has appeared through its counsel, but he did file version. The 2^nd and 3^rd OPs did not appear before the forum and they were called out absent and they have been placed ex-parte and posted the case for filing the affidavit of the complainant.

          4. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced 13 documents along with complaint. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant meticulously. 

5. One U.K.Srinivas, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he purchased a Dual SIM QWERTY mobile handset of Micromax company model Q7 from 2^nd OP by paying Rs.2,600=00. Thereafter, he found battery problem and brought to the notice of the same to 2^nd OP and handed over the mobile hand set to 3^rd OP in the month of June 2012. Thereafter though he handed over the mobile handset to 3^rd OP for nearly three times in the same year of its purchase for conducting repairs the same problems continued and hence he informed the same to the 3^rd OP that he wants replacement of the defective mobile hand set with a new defect free hand set since it is under warranty. For which the 3^rd OP told that, they will send it to manufacturer i.e. 1^st OP and accordingly, he deposited the said mobile handset with 3^rd OP on 2-1-2013 and the same was acknowledged under job sheet no.R1301FKTR2611627. On 31-1-2013 3^rd OP telephoned to him stating that mobile hand set is ready to take deliver and problems were solved, but after taking delivery, he again noticed same problems. Hence he wrote a letter through RPAD on 13-2-2013 to 1^st OP seeking replacement of the defective handset giving time for 15 days, but till date OPs neither cared to replace the defective mobile hand set nor refunded the amount. So he has come up with the present complaint and he prays to pass an order as prayed for.

          6. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained uncontroverted. The OPs have neither appeared nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant. So under the circumstance, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

7. Let us have a cursory glance at the relevant documents of complainant. Document no.1 of the complainant is Tax invoice dated 30-1-2012 for having purchased the mobile hand set from the 2^nd OP. Document no.2 is the copy of email of complainant dated 28-1-2013 to the OP requesting to solve his problem by making replacement of mobile. Document no.3 is the copy of reply sent through email by 1^st OP on 28-1-2013. Document no.4 is the copy of letter dated 13-2-2013 sent by the complainant to the 1^st OP through RPAD requesting to replace the mobile phone with new handset within two weeks failing which he will take legal action with monetary compensation. Document no.5 is postal receipt dated 14-2-2013. Document no.6 is the postal acknowledgment card received by the 1^st OP on 23-2-2013.

8. On making careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of complainant, it is an undisputed fact that, on 30-1-2012 the complainant purchased Micro Max Dual Sim Qwerty Mobile handset from 2^nd OP by making payment of Rs.2,600=00 which is having one year warranty. Thereafter the complainant started getting battery problem in the said mobile hand set and submitted the same for conducting repair to 3^rd OP but complainant found continuation of the same problems. Hence, once again as per the suggestion given by the 3^rd OP that they will send it to the manufacturer i.e. 1^st OP complainant handed over the said mobile hand set for repair but after deliver also same problems persisted in the said mobile handset. None of these allegations made in the complainant were denied or challenged by the OPs. The OPs neither filed their objections nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant. So, under these circumstances we have no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of the complainant. It is contended by the complainant that, within a span of one year from the date of purchase of the said mobile hand set it has been given for repairs for three times to 3^rd OP, but still same problems continued. The complainant noticed problems in the said mobile hand set under the warranty period and 3^rd OP i.e. the service centre has totally failed to set right the problems found in the mobile handset. However, they has also failed to replace the same with a new defect free mobile hand set of the same make. The OPs are grossly negligent and have failed to provide the services as under taken by them. The said act of not attending the problem of complainant is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. It is seen that the complainant has invested Rs.2,600=00 towards purchase of the mobile hand set and naturally it is the bounden duty of the OPs to repair the said mobile handset if any problems arises in the mobile hand set within its warranty period. After receiving consideration they must satisfy its customers as per their undertakings made in the warranty card, but the OPs instead of doing so have failed to provide the service as undertaken by them. The complainant repeatedly requested OPs for replacement of the defective mobile hand set of the same model and by sending emails, but till date neither OPs made arrangement towards replacement nor refunded the amount nor repaired the mobile hand set. This act of OPs will certainly amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OPs. So from the material evidence of complainant, we hold that the complainant has proved with believable evidence that, the OPs are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not attending the problem of mobile well within warranty period, so the OPs are directed to make replacement of new MICROMAX mobile set and hand over the same to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the OP shall refund Rs.2,600=00 to complainant along with 6% interest on the said amount from the date of complaint to till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 towards cost of litigation and according the complaint of complainant is partly sustainable. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint of complainant is partly allowed.

The OPs are jointly and severally liable to replace the Micromax mobile hand set with a new defect free Micromax mobile hand set of the same model within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the Ops shall refund Rs.2,600=00 to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.

The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this, 2^nd day of August 2014).

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT