O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):
Complainant Smt. Joyamma George residing at Kochupurackal, Chengaroor P.O, Mallappally, filed this Complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of the compliant is as follows. On 14/08/15 Complainant purchased a mobile set worth Rs. 2,200/- from the opposite party manufactured by the Micromax Informatics Ltd. After 4 months mobile set become defective. Complainant approached the opposite party for its repair or replacement. Complainant entrusted the same with the opposite party for repairing. But they could not mentioned a specific date for repairing. Complainant contacted the opposite party several times. Finally she send notice to the opposite party through speed post and lodged a complaint in their site. But there was no response from the opposite party. Defect of the Mobile set occurred in warranty period. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complainant for getting the cost of the Mobile rate Rs. 2,200/- along with cost and compensation.
3. In this case opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions: Opposite party admit that they sold Micromax Mobile set to the complainant and opposite party entrusted the Mobile set their service center at Kottayam. After repairing the set they several times contacted the complainant to hand over the mobile set, but she never turned up. Now the repaired set is produced before the Forum. Replacement of mobile set within the warranty period is the duty of the manufacturer, So these opposite party has no responsibility to replace the same. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint. While filing the complaint, complainant included manufacturer as a party. On 08.07.2016 as per complainant’s application manufacturer deleted from the party array.
4. On the basis of the pleading in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant’s husband who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him is marked as Ext. A1 to A5 series. Even though, opposite party filed version but they not turned up to cross examining the complainant or not adduced any evidence before the Forum. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.
6. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that he had purchased a mobile set from the opposite party. On the warranty period itself it became faulty. Ext A1 is the authorization given by the complainant to her husband George Philip. Ext.A2 is the Tax Invoice of Rs. 2200/- dated 14/08/15 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A3 is the warranty statement of the Micromax product. Ext. A4 is the receipt given by the opposite party dated 05/12/15. Ext. A5 series is the copy of the letters send by the complainant to the opposite party and manufacturer.
7. As per the direction of the Forum opposite party hand over the repaired set to the complainant. But the complainant returned the mobile set before the Forum on the next posting itself alleging that complaint of the mobile set is not rectified. It is in the custody of the Forum. While examining the complainant it is marked as M.O.1.
8. On a Perusal of Ext A1 to A4 it is seen that complainant’s allegation is genuine and complainant approached opposite party several times to get the mobile set repaired. But the opposite party not turned up, till she filed the complaint before the Forum. Moreover, opposite party put a version shifting the burden upon the manufacturer. Being the authorized seller of the Micromax mobile set he can’t simply evade from his liability. Being a seller he has certain liability towards customers. Therefore, we are of the view that opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence this complaint is allowable.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite party is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one or return the price of the mobile set Rs. 2,200/- (Rupees Two Thousand two hundred only) to the complainant along with cost and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant, failing which complainant is allowed to realize the cost of the mobile set along with compensation ordered herein above with 10% from the date of order.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member – I)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : George Philip
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization given by the complainant to her husband George Philip.
A2 : Tax Invoice of Rs. 2,200/- dated 14/08/15 issued by the opposite party
to the complainant.
A3 : Warranty statement of the Micromax product.
A4 : Receipt given by the opposite party dated 05/12/15.
A5 series : Copy of the letters send by the complainant to the opposite party
and manufacturer.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Court Exhibit:
M.O.1 : Mobile set
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Joyamma George, Kochupurackal, Chengaroor.P.O.,
Mallappally, Pathanamthitta – 689 594.
(2) Phone Palace, Kodiyattu Building, T.K. Road, Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
