Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/101/2014

S.Shanmugasundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Mobi Vision, - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 21.02.2014

                                                                 Date of Order         : 11.08.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,               :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                             :  MEMBER – I

 

                                                     

C.C.No. 101/ 2014

THIS THURSDAY  11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

S. Shanmugasundaram,

No.21/30, Zakir Hussain Street,

West Tambaram,

Chennai – 45.                                                .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

1. The Managing Director, Micromax House – 90, Sector – 18, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015.   2. The Manager, M/s. Mobi Vision, Old No.61, New No.149, Kodambakkam High Road, T.Nagar, (Opp. to Hotel Pratap Plaza), Chennai – 17.   3. The Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited, B.O.No.22, Muthuranga Muthali Street, Near Municipal Office, West Tambaram, Chennai – 45, H.O.No.30, Arcot Road, Opp. Meenakshi College, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24.                                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant             :    M/s. R.Vidhya & R.Revathi.         

For the opposite parties        :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1000/- as cost of the complaint.

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite parties were set exparte. 

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’ counsel.

4.     The complainant contended that he had purchased an A116 Micro Max Mobile phone on 24^th April 2013 for Rs.14,500/- vide IMEI No.911304251632364 with warranty of one year from the 3^rd opposite party.   After some days there was hearing problem while receiving calls as well as during outgoing calls.  Hence the complainant submitted the mobile to the 2^nd opposite party at the advice of the 3^rd  opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party issued Job sheet and told that some parts had conked off and need to be replaced which would take two days to complete task.   The complainant was also making the follow up with the 2^nd opposite party.   On 30^th October 2013 the complainant was informed that the mobile had some other issues and they closed the above job sheet and issued a fresh one.   The executive of the 2^nd opposite party also informed that the problem had arised due to mother board instead of speakers and therefore they had replaced the mother board with new one and the complainant  need to pay a sum of Rs.750/- for the replacement irrespective of the fact that the mobile was under warranty period and forced the complainant to make the payment.  But the complainant refused to pay the said amount since it was under warranty.  The complainant also sent a letter to the opposite parties on 2.1.2014 which was also acknowledged by the opposite parties but they refused to send any reply. Since the opposite parties failed to take steps to resolve the issues complainant was facing difficulties due to the act of the opposite parties.  The complainant also contended that the mobile phone is under the custody of the 2^nd opposite party and that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to apologize for the inconvenience caused and to refund a sum of Rs.14,500/- and to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of complaint.   

5.     It is evidenced through Ex.A1 that the complainant purchased the complaint mentioned mobile for a sum of Rs.14,500/- on 24.4.2013 from the 3^rd opposite party.

6.     The grievance of the complainant is that within a few days there was hearing problem in the incoming and outgoing calls in the mobile phone.   At the advice of the 3^rd opposite party he handed over the mobile phone to the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre.     The 2^nd opposite party also informed that there was problem in the speakers and some parts has to be replaced which would take two days to complete the task and also issued a job sheet for the same.   Whereas on 30^th October 2013 without handing over the mobile phone the 2^nd opposite party informed that the phone had some other issues and the problem had aroused only due to mother board and not because of the speakers and therefore they replaced the mother board and demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.750/-.   When the complainant refused to pay the said amount, since it was under warranty the 2^nd opposite party retained the mobile phone with them.   The complainant was not inclined to pay such amount since it was the fault of the 2^nd opposite party.   Hence the complainant contended that he is not liable to pay the said amount. 

7.     The contention of the complainant that within few days there was hearing problem in the mobile phone for which the 2^nd opposite party issued a job sheet and later on they issued a fresh job sheet mentioning the old job sheet No. is proved through Ex.A2.   

8.     As per the contention of the complainant the 2^nd opposite party who initially informed that there was problem in the speaker and when they issued the 2^nd job sheet during October 2013 keeping the mobile under their custody for the said period they informed that there was problem in the mother board and they changed the mother board and demanded Rs.750/- from the complainant is not sustainable since within few days the mobile phone was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party at the direction of the 3^rd opposite party, Ex.A1 also reveals that the mobile phone was under warranty period.  Hence the demand of Rs.750/- by the 2^nd opposite party is not sustainable.   Moreover from the evidence of the complainant it reveals that initially the 2^nd opposite party informed that there was problem in the speaker later on without any intimation to the complainant they themselves changed the mother board and demanded
Rs.750/- from the complainant.  Hence the submissions of the complainant counsel that there is manufacturing defect and therefore the demand made by the 2^nd opposite party for payment of Rs.750/- and retention of the mobile is not sustainable and the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount is acceptable.   Moreover Ex.A3 also reveals that the complainant had sent a letter to the opposite parties stating his grievance over the complaint mentioned mobile but it is found that the opposite parties had not replied to his notice nor complied his request even after receipt of the same which also shows their deficiency in service.

 

9.     After rectifying the defect the 2^nd opposite party ought to have returned the mobile to the complainant without demanding the said amount from the complainant since the mobile was under warranty but the 2^nd opposite party had failed to do so.   Hence the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service is acceptable.

 

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- being the cost of the complaint mentioned mobile along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 21.2.2014 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant, since interest is awarded we are not inclined to grant any compensation.    

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.    The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- (Rupees fourteen thousand and five hundred only) being the cost of the complaint mentioned mobile along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 21.2.2014  to  till  the  date of  payment  and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards

litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order. 

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th   day of August   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                   PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 30.10.2013         - Copy of Job sheet.

Ex.A2- 24.4.2013  - Copy of Invoice.

Ex.A3- 2.1.2014    - Copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 10.1.2014  - Copy of Courier receipt.

 

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-         

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                   PRESIDENT.