MRS RAJASHREE AGARWALLA, MEMBER-

             Unfair Trade Practice in respect of non-replacement of Complainant’s newly purchased defective mobile handset are the allegations arrayed against the Ops by the complainant.

2.             Complainant in brief reveals that Complainant purchased a mobile handset manufactured by Micromax, bearing Model No. 7000013334 on dt. 12/4/2016 from J.E. Mobile Store, Kendrapara (Op No.1) on payment of Rs. 7,400/-. It is alleged that on after 15 days of purchase of the mobile set, it stopped functioning automatically. The defect was brought to the notice of Op No.1,who repaired and handover the same to complainant. Just few days after such repair again the mobile handset stopped functioning, the matter was reported to Customer care, Micromax authorized dealer, M/S Gyanna Communication, Pattamundai(Op-3) on the instruction of Op No.1. The Op No.3 in receipt of the handset returned the same after 7 days, but again the same defects were detected in the set. When the Complainant again requested the Op No.1 to replace the defective set, Op No.1 paid a deafear to the grievance of the complainant, for which Complaint before this Forum for refund of the price of the handset as the defects occurred during the warranty period and to pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation.

3.                   Notice was served to the Ops through Registered Post with A.D. by this Forum. Op No.1 &3 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte by this Forum. OP No.2 Micromax informatics Ltd. appears through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute. In the written statement Op No.3 countering the allegations averred that Op No.2 has not committed any Unfair Trade Practice as per the version of the Complaint in regards to providing free service to the set for two times without any charge.  Op No.2 also raised the question of handling of mobile set by the users including the family member of the Complainant. It is further stated that Complaint his never approached replacement, and Op No.2 is ready to pay the amount of handset subject to return of original handset or job sheet along with all the documents. Accordingly, the complainant is to be rejected with cost.

 4.    Heard the submission of complainant who appeared personally on the date of argument. Non-appears on behalf of Op No.2, and a retired memo was filed earlier by their Ld. Counsel stating that she is no more interested to proceed with the case, hence take up the hearing of the case of Op No.2 on merit and ex-parte hearing against other Ops.

                            On submissions of Complainant and presentation  of documents i.e, attested Xerox copies of cash memo, warranty card and job sheets granted in favour of Complainant and confirmed that the purchase of mobile hand set by Complainant from Op No.1 dealer on payment of Rs.7,400/- on dt. 12/4/2016, Model Micromax Canvas Fireyh, No.- 7000013334. The warranty also reveals that the warranty is valid for 12 months from the date of purchases. Further, the Job sheet dtd.  13/05/2016 reflects that the set has been received for problem of ‘Power does not Switched on’ and the set is delivered to Complainant-consumer.

                        In the present dispute during pendency of the present proceeding the parties were at a negotiation to end the dispute, accordingly a memo was filed subsequently the negotiation failed.  In the written statement, it is stated that Op No.2 is ready to pay the price of the mobile handset, subject to its return. Now, it is clear that when Op No.2 is ready to refund the price, there is no further discussion is necessary for adjudication of the dispute. Equally, it is clear that, such defects in the mobile handset and delayed compliance of the grievance definitely causes mental agony to the Complainant. Complainant deserves to get back the purchasing price of the handset Rs. 7,400/- in addition to that Op No.2 has to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation of Rs. 500/-, in toto Rs.9,900/-(Rs. Nine thousand Nine hundred only). We do not find the other Ops have any role in the allegation of Unfair Trade Practice, as the main grievance lies and to be complied byOpNo.2 Micromax Ltd.

                Having observations, reflected above, it is directed that the complainant will deposit the disputed mobile handset before Op No.1 dealer and will obtain receipt on this effect. It is further directed Op No.2 Micromax, will pay an amount of Rs. 9,900/-(Rs. Nine thousand Nine hundred only) within one month from receive of the disputed mobile handset 7(seven) days time is allowed to Complainant from the receipt of this order to deposit/handover the disputed mobile handset before Op No., on violation of the order of the Forum by the parties, action will be intimated against the defaulting parties.

                Complaint is allowed in part without cost on merit against OpNo.2.

                      Pronounced in the open Court, this 29th day of July, 2017.