Order- 15.

Date-29/04/2015.

Complainant Priyanka Hazra by filing this complaint has submitted that on 05.02.2014 complainant purchased one Micromax A-40 Mobile on payment of Rs. 5,850/- against Bill being No. 1501 from Nu-York Tele World after purchase within two weeks software problem was detected and that was forthwith reported to the Service Centre M/s. Technique Services and thereafter it was repaired.  But again problem was detected within 20 days and after that complainant again deposited the same to the Service Centre of the company and ultimately on 18.09.2014 complainant deposited the said mobile to the op.  But thereafter the mobile has not yet been repaired or defects have not been removed and it is till lying in the custody of the op no.2. 

          Thereafter complainant contacted with Head Office but no result was received.  So, ultimately complainant submitted her complain to the ops on 08.11.2014 but no answer was received by the complainant and due to negligent and deficient manner of service of the same and also she had been deceived by the op and for which complainant suffered mentally and also suffered huge time, failed to keep contact with other for want of mobile and ultimately complainant prayed for compensation and refund of the entire amount.

          Subsequently after receipt of notice, op no.1 appeared and submitted that everything is in matter of record that it is the fault of the dealer/service centre of the manufacturing company is liable for that op no.1 never harassed the complainant and for any reason complainant never deposited the mobile set to the op no.1 and practically op no.1 is not aware of such allegation as made and such allegation is made against the op no.1 by the complainant at any point of time and the dealer can do anything if manufacturer cannot repair the same and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

          Op no.2 even after receipt of the notice did not turn up and also did not take any action and filed no written statement and in the above circumstances, the case is heard finally for decision.

                                                      Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also hearing the argument as advanced by the parties and their Ld. Lawyers we have gathered that no doubt complainant purchased the said mobile set on payment of Rs. 5,850/- to the op no.1 on 05.02.2014 and fact remains that just after purchase within two weeks software problem was detected and it was deposited to the op no.2 and op no.2 repaired the same.  But again the same problem was found.  Subsequently after reporting complainant got the same but again problem was found and ultimately on 18.09.2014 complainant deposited it finally to the op no.2 but since then it has not yet been returned to the complainant and that is no doubt admitted by the op no.1 before this Forum at the time of argument.  But it is submitted by the op no.1 before this Forum that ultimately it was repaired but it is lying in the custody of the op no.2 and op no.2 did not take any step on behalf of the company because op no.2 the Service Centre of Micromax Mobile Company.

          So, considering that fact, it is clear that complainant after purchase of the said mobile did not get proper service one after another problem was found and it was finally deposited to op no.2 and op no.2 repaired but failed to remove such defect free mobile on behalf of the company when op no.2 is the Service Centre of the Micromax Company.

          It is peculiar that op no.2 got notice of the same but did not appear and also did not submit any written statement challenging the allegation of the complainant.  On the contrary op no.1 in open Forum submitted that he came to learn that very recently it has been repaired.  But truth is that the said mobile set was finally deposited on 18.09.2014 to the op no.2 the Service Centre of the Company but they did not take any step since then.  Thereafter complainant filed this complaint on 21.11.2014 for relief and till today op no.2 has not appeared and gave any satisfactory explanation for harassment caused by the op no.2 the Service Centre including their manufacturing company and further no certificate has been submitted before this Forum to show that mobile is free from any defect and there is no such manufacturing defect.

          So, considering all the above fact, we are convinced to hold that company including the seller are jointly liable for such sort of harassment, mental agony caused to the lady.  Truth is that the mobile was purchased by the complainant with a hope that she shall get the service but practically complainant did not get such service but ultimately she deposited the mobile set to the op no.2 and op no.2 did not take any step on behalf of the company service provider and did not hand over to the same till to date and same was not deposited before this Forum.

          So, considering that fact, it is clear that company and their service centre op no.2 is no doubt negligent and deficient in manner and in fact the seller has the liability to see that customer is satisfied from the service because in the bill it is noted that service shall be rendered by the service centre but that service centre has not given any such service and not even handed over the defect free mobile to the complainant as yet.  In fact complainant as a lady has suffered much.  She went to the Service Centre and shop of the op again and again and sent letter but no such step was given by the op and it is no doubt anti-consumer on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 and when op no.1 is the seller and dealer of the op no.2 Micromax Company then invariably op no.1 the Service Centre op no.2 are equally liable for compensating the same and question of returning the same set at this stage does not arise when complainant already purchased and using the same because it was highly required in her daily life.  When ops did not render service by repairing and handing over the disputed set prior to filing of the complaint.

          In the above situation invariably the prayer for refund of said mobile should be allowed when the mobile is in the custody of the op, along with price money prayer for awarding some compensation.  In this regard it is to be mentioned that in most of the cases Micromax Company has not given any proper service which has been observed by this Forum in so many cases so we have gathered that Micromox Company has harassed the complainant in such fashion.

          In the result, complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and same is allowed against op in exparte form with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-

          Ops are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay the entire price amount of the said mobile set that is Rs. 5,850/- and also a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- that is total Rs. 8,850/- to the complainant and also the litigation cost as awarded within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, ops shall have to pay penal interest  at the rate Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum even if op fails to comply the order, in that case op shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and find shall be imposed.