Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

223/2014

A.K.Muralidaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Poorvika mobiles Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

R.Purushothaman

01 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on: 21.11.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on: 11.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 11^th DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.223/2014

 

 

Mr.A.K.Muralidharan,

S/o. Madhavan,

Old.No.36 A. New No.30,

Kannagi Nagar,

Korattur, Chennai – 600 080.

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited, Door No.SL 24/LGP (49-50L) Express Avenue, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.   2.M/s. E-Zone Technologies, AMM Towers, 49, Ground Floor, Thiruvalluvar Street, Opp. Spartan School, Mugappair, Chennai – 37.   3.Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House, 90 B, Sector, 18, Gurgaon, Pin: 122 015.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  03.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : R.Purushothaman

Counsel for 1^st   opposite party               : S.Muthuselvam Dismissed on: 12.04.16    

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party       : Ex- parte   

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased a Micromax P410 Model Tablet Phone from the 1^st Opposite Party shop on 08.11.2013 on payment of consideration of Rs.8,500/-.  At the time of purchase of the product the 1^st Opposite Party instructed him to charge the product continuously for 8 hours and also to read the instruction manual. There is no problem for first 3 months in the product. On 30.01.2014 the product was not charged properly inspite of that he put the product during entire night in the charging, the battery icon in the tablet screen shows the discharging of power gradually and within half an hour the entire charge was drained out. The Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party customer care of manufacturer and he in turn informed the Complainant to approach the 2^nd Opposite Party service provider. On 31.01.2014 the Complainant handed over the product to the 2^nd Opposite Party vide token No.77, they advice to change the battery and the problem will be solved. The battery also replaced and again re-charged for 8 hours and however the problem remains unsolved and the charge again drained out. Again, he gave it to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 01.02.2014 and after checking informed him that it will take 20 days and job sheet was also given to him. Even, after contacting the 2^nd Opposite Party, he did not rectify and handed over the product to the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service by selling defective product. The Complainant after issuing notice to the Opposite Parties, this Complaint has been filed to refund the cost of the product, compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. Though the Opposite Party 2^nd & 3^rd received notice they did not appear and hence they were set ex – parte.

          3. The 1^st Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed written version and however on 12.04.2006 the Complainant not pressed the Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party by way of endorsement and hence the Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party is ordered as dismissed as withdrawn.

          4.  The Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. The Complainant also filed written arguments and his oral arguments heard.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased a Micromax P410 Model Tablet Phone from the 1^st Opposite Party dealer under Ex.A1 and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the said tablet and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the service provider of the manufacturer.

          7. Ex.A1 is the purchase bill for the purchase of the Micromax P410 Model Tablet Phone from the 1^st Opposite Party. According to the Complainant after 3 months usage of the product and though the battery was fully charged and the charge in the battery drained out within half hour and even after battery was replaced under Ex.A2 job sheet through the 2^nd Opposite Party service provider, the same problem persists and under Ex.A3 the Complainant handed over the product to the 2^nd Opposite Party for service, he did not rectify the defect and handed over the tablet to the Complainant. The Complainant also issued Ex.A4 notice before fling this Complaint in this Forum and even after receipt of the same the Opposite Parties did not reply. The Complainant specifically alleged that there is an inherent defect in the product and that is why the charge is drained out automatically within half an hour. The product is also with the 2^nd Opposite Party for rectification of service. There is contra evidence for the above allegations on behalf of the Opposite Parties and hence the evidence of the Complainant has to be accepted. From the evidence of the Complainant and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, the Complainant proved that the product is having inherent defect and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the manufacturer and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the service provider did not rectify the product establishes that the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party have committed Deficiency in Service. The 1^st Opposite Party is only a seller of the product and he had not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT No :2

          As the product is an inherent defect one, the prayer of the Complainant to refund the cost of the product is accepted and it would be appropriate to order the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the product of Rs.8,500/- to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs.5,000/-  towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

           In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs. 8,500/- (Rupees eight thousand  five hundred only) towards the  cost of the  product to the Complainant and also  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides  a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five  thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint against the 1^st Opposite Party is already dismissed on 12.04.2016.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1dated 08.11.2013           Tablet phone purchase bill

Ex.A2 dated 31.01.2014                     Token No.77

Ex.A3 dated 01.02.2014                     Token No.17

Ex.A4 dated 08.03.2014                     Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated 08.03.2014                     Postal Receipt

Ex.A6 dated NIL                      Acknowledgment cards

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT