1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax handset Model Quad core Phablet Win - W 121(B), Vide I MEI No.911381950195331 & 911381950125338 from OP.1 for Rs.5499/- vide Invoice No. RL- 181149 Dt.13.7.2015 through Net Booking which was received by the complainant at Jeypore on 19.7.2015 and in spite of careful use the set started giving defects on 01.08.2015 like incoming and outgoing voice problems, charging and Wi Fi Problem for which the set was handed over to OP.3 (ASC) for repair. It is submitted that the OP.3 kept the set for one month and returned with assurance that the set will function perfectly within one week but failed to issue job sheet. After some days of use the complainant noticed that besides earlier problems, some new problems arose in the set
like set heat for which the set was handed over to OP.3 on 01.10.2015 who carried out repair and issued job sheet but after a couple of days, the problems returned and on approach to OP.3 on 03.11.2015, he denied to repair and stated that the defects would not be rectified as he has tried his best and the set bears some manufacturing defect. Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods sold by Ops 1 & 2, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.5499/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.7.2015 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. In spite of valid notice the Ops 1 & 3 neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and remained ex-parte. The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant contending that it has no knowledge about the averments made in the complainant petition and the Ops 1 & 3 have never intimated the allegations made in the complaint petition to OP No.2. Denying any defect in the handset sold to the complainant, the OP contended that the complainant has not furnished any expert report to show that the handset is a defect one. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. Heard from the A/R for the complainant and OP No.2 and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case the complainant stated that he purchased a Micromax handset model Quad core Phablet Win- W121 (B) for Rs.5499/- vide Invoice No. RL- 181149 dt.13.7.15 from OP.1 being manufactured by OP.2. In support of purchase the complainant has filed copy of invoice granted by OP.1. Hence the purchase of handset by the complainant from OP.1 is proved. The complainant stated that he received the set on 19.7.15 but in spite of careful use the incoming, outgoing voice problems, charging and Wi Fi problems were noticed for which he contacted OP.3 who took one month time to repair but failed to issue job sheet on demand. It is further stated that after some days of use, the handset gave multiple defects like auto switch off, charging error, application error, set heat, Wi Fi and voice problem and the set was creating disturbances while in use. The complainant handed over the set to OP.3 on 01.10.15 and got back the set after one month but after a day or two of the repair, the previous problems returned. On approach, the OP.3 denied to undertake repair and stated that he has done his best and the set cannot be repaired as it has some inherent manufacturing defects.
5. The OP No.2 in his counter stated that it has no knowledge about the sale and repair of the alleged set by Ops 1 & 3 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.3 is the authorized service Centre of OP.2. 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.3 is the ASC of OP.2, armed with experts. When the OP.3, known as experts duly recognized by OP.2 declined to repair the set due to manufacturing defect, 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 & 3 we lost opportunity to know anything from them and as such the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged. Therefore, it can be concluded that in spite of repairs by the ASC of OP.2, the set could not be brought into working order due to inherent manufacturing defect in the set as opined by ASC. It was ascertained that the complainant could not use the set due to such 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 in lieu of defective set. 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 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 favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.5499/- towards cost of the handset with interest @ 12% p.a. from 13.7.2015 in lieu of defective handset and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
