BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

               CACHAR :: SILCHAR

                 Con. Case No. 48 of 2014

            Sri Pankaj Sarda,……………. ……………… …..................................……………..Complainant. 

                                                            -V/S-

            1) Micromax Informatic Ltd.

                21/14A, Phase –II, Narain Indusrtial area Delhi, 110028.

            2) Micromax Informatic Ltd.

                90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.

            3) Premier Trade Link Pvt. Ltd.

                1 Plaza Market, Shop No. 22, 82/B Manshatala Lane, Kolkata- 700023.

            4) M/S. S.K.Traders,

                1^st Floor, Idgah Market Complex,

                Itkhola Road, Silcahr

                Dist. Cachar, Assam. …………………….............................……………………Opp. Parties.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                  President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.

                                                            Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                      Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.

            Appeared :-                 Sri Titu Deb Roy, Advocate for the complainant.

O.Ps none  appeared

                           Date of Evidence……………….      10-02-2015

                         Date of argument………………        29-03-2017

                         Date of judgment………………        07-04-2017                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

           (Sri Bishnu Dednath, President, Dist.Forum.)

1. This case has been lodged by Sri Pankaj Sarda S/o Sri Ghanashyam Sarda of Janiganj, Silchar for replacement of mobile set or in alternative repay  the price of the mobile set of Rs. 11,400/- and also compensation for mental agonies etc. and cost of the proceeding. In this judgment, Sri Pankaj Sarda is referred as 'Complaint'.
2. The case has been lodged against Micromax Informatics Ltd. New Delhi and  Haryana along with Premier Trade Link, Kolkata and M/S S.K. Traders, Idgah Market Complex, Itkhola Road, Silchar. All those above parties are referred in this judgment as 'OP'
3. Brief facts:- the complainant purchased a Micromax mobile hand set vide IMEI No. 911353300088698 and No. 91135300292696 from the O.P No.3 for Rs. 11,400/- on 30/11/2013 vide receipt No. 1651 dated 30/11/2013 (Referred as hand set). The battery of the hand set got bulged after 3 (three) months from the date of purchase of the hand set. Accordingly, the Complainant visited the service center i.e. the O.P No.4 at Silchar. The O.P No.4 replaced the battery within 3 (three) days but thereafter the  hand set started various problems such as screen of the hand set remain hanged up, started jumping etc.  Hence the Complainant visited again the service center i.e. the O.P No.4 on 29/05/2014.
4. The O.P No.4 returned the hand set on 03/07/2014 with a plea that hand set has been repaired but on using the hand set thereafter, the Complainant noticed that nothing has been repaired as the earlier.
5. Problem appeared in the hand set. Thus, on 05/07/2014 the Complainant visited the O.P No.4 with the defective hand set. The O.P No.4 received the hand set and issued Job Sheet on 07/07/2014 vide EO20242-0714-10689653. On 19/07/2014 the O.P No.4 informed the complainant that hand set has been repaired and may collect the same on 21/07/2014.
6. The complainant now refused to take back the hand set because the hand set became very deplorable condition and he demanded to O.P No.4 to replace the hand set but the O.P No.4 failed to give positive response. Due to such negligence and disservice on the part of the O.Ps created mental shock, agony and harassment and financial loss to the Complainant.
7. Formal notice issued to the O.Ps but they did not appear and contest the case. Accordingly, the case is proceeding exparte against all the O.Ps vide order dated 04/12/2014.
8. Accordingly, the complainant adduced evidence supporting affidavit and exhibited some documents. On the date of argument on 26/-03/2015 the learned Advocate Mr. Ajoy Kumar Choudhury submitted a petition No. 305 on behalf of O.P No.1 and 2 stating inter-alia that the O.P No.1 and 2 are willing to replace the defective hand set by amicable settlement. Said petition was kept under consideration and fixed on 18/04/2015 for hearing and necessary order. However, no amicable settlement was done as the O.Ps did not replace the hand set.
9.  During hearing the Complainant submitted his Examination-in-chief supporting an affidavit and exhibited as many as 7(seven) documents including Cash Memo, vide Ext.1, Customer details cum warranty Card, vide Ext.2, The OPs did not examine any witness. As such, we have heard argument of the learned Advocate of the complainant and peruse the evidence on record.
10.  At the outset of appreciation of evidence on record it is pertinent to mention here that advocate Ajoy Kumar Choudhury submitted a petition No.305 stating inter-alia that the OP are willing to replace the defective mobile set on amicable settlement. The advocates of the parties were heard on 18.04.2015 in respect of Petition No.305 and date fixed on 06.05.2015 for necessary order but on 06.05.2015 the learned advocate of the OP No.1 & 2 submitted Petition No.462 with a prayer to allow time to replace the hand set. The prayer has been allowed and date fixed on 22.05.2015 for necessary Order. But no final order passed on Petition No.305. Moreover, no signature of the authorised representative of the OP No.1 & 2 are available on any of the above mentioned petitions. I have also not found any compromise agreement between the parties in the record to conclude that the dispute has been settled on compromise.  Moreover, the said advocate of the OP No.1 & 2 has not turned up at the time of argument. Hence, the plea of compromise and replacement of hand set by the O.P No.1 and 2 are not taken in to consideration.
11. .Anyhow, the complaint deposed to support his case. He exhibited a receipt vide Ext.1. As per that receipt the complainant purchased the aforesaid hand set for Rs. 11,400/- from the O.P No.3. Ext. 2 is the Customer Detail cum Warranty Card. In the Ext.2 detail of hand set is mentioned as Mobile No.A116i Product serial No. 911353300088698 and IMEI No.911353300292698 date of purchase on 30/11/2013. Ext. 3 is the Job sheet dated 07/07/2014.
12. The Complainant also exhibited some other relevant documents. From the oral evidence and from the exhibited documents it is crystal clear that the Complainant purchased the hand set from the O.P No.3 for Rs. 11,400/-. It is also clear that the O.P No.4 being the service center of Micromax mobile hand set receive the hand set for repairing. Of course, in the case from the fact stated by the complaint, it is revealed that the service center asked the complainant to receive the repaired hand set but the Complainant refused to receive back on the plea that the handset has become very deplorable condition within the guaranteed period.
13. We have gone through the content of Ext.2. All the condition mentioned in the Ext.2 are covered. Therefore, the complainant either to get replacement of hand set or to get the repaired and full functional hand set.
14.  As the complainant has proved the fact that he purchased the hand set from O.P No.3 for cash of RS. 11,400/- and established a fact that the set was defective, so he is entitled a relief of repairing of this hand set from O.P No.4 within a reasonable time or in alternative replacement of a new hand set from OP No.1, 2 or OP. No.3.
15. In the instant case, the Complainant stated that the O.P No.4 already inform him that the hand set has been repaired. So the Complainant is asked to receive back the repaired hand set from the O.P No.4.
16. With the above direction, this case is disposed of on merit without  any cost because the case was instituted by the complainant after receiving the information from the O.P No.4 to collect the repaired mobile without any justified cause of action.
17. Supply free copies of judgment to the parties.

Given under my hand and seal of this Forum on this 7^th day of April 2017.