Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/7/2015

Vinay Vegad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Bindwasini Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.K. Panigrahi

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

1. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Micromax Mobile handset Model No. Micromax A94, vide IMEI No.911343702165806/911343702165814(IMEI Code), Battery No. V014911402000017265 and charger No. V014911402000030958 on 29.05.2014 for an amount of Rs. 7350/- from the O.P. No.1. After one and half month on 16.07.2014 the Complainant found that his handset is having a problem which was reflected in the job sheet as “5302-charging/Battery low Battery/Battery DR”, the mobile became hanged, then approached the O.P. No.1 and through him O.P. No.2, authorised service centre of the company. The O.P. No.2 kept the mobile and issued a job sheet No. 10143071410890607 and after 10 days repairing returned the same.

On 21.08.2014 the Complainant again found another problem and rushed to O.P. No.2, job sheet No. 010143081411648146 was issued and the problem reported was “4222 cellular Access(3G) No service 5203 sim-sim card rejected”.After one month the O.P. No.2 handed over the mobile repaired.

Again on 15.12.2014 the Complainant found problem in handset, the camera was not working, it was reflected in job sheet No. E101143121413952983 dt. 15.12.2014 as “5003 Camera no functionality” issued by O.P. No.2. The said problem is not resolved till date. On 30.01.2015 the Complainant approached the O.P. No.2, demanded his handset but the O.P. No.2 said handset has a manufacturing defect and cannot be repaired.

The O.P. No.1 & 2 did not respond to the Complainant when demanded for replacement, denied to return back or exchange the defective handset by saying “goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged”

2. The O.P. No.1 in his show cause admitted the purchase of handset, grant of cash memo and defects complained on 16.07.2014. the O.P. No.1 expressed his no knowledge about problem dated 21.08.2014, 15.12.2014, 30.01.2015 and demand of Complaint to exchange/refund the money, inconvenience made to Complainant.

The O.P. No.1 categorically mentioned that the problem as not crop up within 7 days of purchase the O.P. No.1 is not liable. All service and co-operation is given to the Complainant, the O.P. NO.2 & 3 had to solve the problem.

The O.P. No.2 & 3 have been set Ex-parte.

3. From the Complaint , version of O.P. No.1 and documents filed by the Complainant the following issues are framed:

 

 

103606587.  

1. Was there any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset?
2. Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1:- Was there any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset?

From the job sheet dated 15.12.2014, 21.08.2014 & 16.07.2014 it is clear that from time to time different problem arose, solved by O.P. No.2 and after 15.12.2014 there is no any documentary evidence filed in the case. The date of purchase of handset is 29.05.2014 for an amount of Rs.7350/-. The O.P. No.2 has taken out warranty charges three times @ Rs. 250/- totaling Rs. 750/- but failed to solve the problem in handset. The repairing was within period of warranty. From the above facts it is clear that there was manufacturing defect in the handset.

The mobile set was non functional the Complainant purchased another set for Rs. 2500/- on 21.08.2014 from fone Pay, Soma Enterprises, Sambalpur.

The non response of the O.P. No.2 & 3 proves the manufacturing defect in the product.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:- Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps?

          The job sheets discussed supra prove that the O.P. No.2 failed to solve the problem in handset. Till date the grievance of Complainant has not been solved by the O.Ps within the period of warranty and thereafter also.

          Accordingly, the O.Ps are deficient in service to the Complainant.

ISSUE NO.3:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

          For the deficiency in service of the O.Ps, the Complainant was compelled to purchase another handset for Rs. 2500/- on 21.08.2014. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for the relief. Accordingly it is ordered:

 

ORDER

          The Complaint is allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 & ex-parte against O.P. No.2 & 3. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service and the O.P. No.3 for manufacturing defect.

          The O.P. No.3 is exclusively liable to pay for the cost of handset i.e. Rs. 7350/- for the manufacturing defect.

          All the O.Ps are liable to pay for cost of 2^nd set mobile Rs. 2500/-, to-wards harassment Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to-wards litigation expenses.

          The amount above mentioned will carry 4% interest P.A. from the day of filing of this complaint. Non-payment of the above amount within 30 days will attract 12% interest P.A. till payment.

          Order pronounced in open court on this 21^st day of June 2022

          Supply free copies to the parties.