Order No. 12 Dt. 31/08/2017
The complaint case in a nutshell is that the complainant Badrul Islam purchased a mobile phone of Micromax Q382 from O.P. No.1, Mobile World of Malda the proprietor of which is one Chandan Jaishawal at the price of Rs.5750/- on 11/04/2016. Since the beginning of purchase some defects was detected in the said mobile set and it became dead on September, 2016. The petitioner within the warranty period contacted the Service Centre of the said mobile set i.e. O.P. No.2 styled as ‘ MICROMAX CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE, MALDA’ on 05/10/2016 for repair of the said set. The O.P. No.2 asked him to have a deposit of Rs. 3500/- as charge for the repairment. The petitioner was not agreed to pay the repairing charge as the mobile set became dead within warranty period. So he lodged the complaint for refund the price money of Rs.5750/- or replace the same along with compensation Rs.20000/-.
The O.P. No.1 i.e. the Mobile World, who sold out the mobile set to the complainant has contested the case by filing written statement and contended that the complainant could not use the mobile set following the guidelines inserted in the manual supplied to him at the time of purchase and due to bad use the mobile set became defective and due to drop of ill water the mobile set has become defective and service centre i.e. O.P. No.2 had the duty for such repairment and the O.P. No.1 had nothing to do in this matter and as such the mobile shop owner i.e. O.P.1 is not liable to pay the compensation.
The petitioner in this case has submitted his affidavit-in-chief and relevant documents on his part was produced and marked exhibited documents.
The O.P. on previous day remained absent and as such the case was posted for ex parte hearing today. The O.P. No.1 through his Ld.Advocate appears today and wants to contest the case as the W/V on his part was already accepted. So the argument of both sides are being heard and the matter to be disposed of on merit.
O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 did not contest the case.
::POINTS FOR DECISION::
- Has the complainant any cause of action ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any compensation and reliefs in this case as per Provision of Sec. 12 and 13 of the C.P. Act, 1986?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
Both the points are taken up togetherly for discussion
Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the MICROMAX Mobile Set from O.P. No.1 and the said mobile set became defective within the warranty period is not disputed. We know that MICROMAX mobile set is a product of China and the assembling centres of parts of the said mobile set are located in various parts of India. The Mobile World (O.P.No.1) is not the manufacturer of the said mobile set. The Customer Service Centre are being paid by the dealers of the said mobile set to provide the service of the customers to remove any defect of any MICROMAX products of Mobile Phone if the customers come to their service centre within the warranty period and in that case they cannot impose any cost or charge for any reapirment of the said mobile set.
Here in this case the O.P.No.1 has asked the petitioner to pay cost of repairment of Rs.3500/- which is unwanted as the complainant came to the service centre within the warranty period.
From the case of the complainant it is also established that he never approached to the seller of the mobile set that the Customer Care Centre did not take any initiative to repair the said set and at the time of argument Ld.Advocate of the O.P. No.1 mentioned that petitioner never approached to O.P. No.1 for repairment of the defect of the said mobile set.
On the contrary, in the Para 7 of written version of O.P. No.1 categorically mentioned that the Service Centre had reported to him that ill water was dropped due to mal handling of the set by the customer which speaks that the O.P. No.1 was also aware that the Mobile Set became defective within the warranty period. So the O.P. No.1 being the seller of the defective mobile set had the duty to satisfy the customer’s grievances as the petitioner was the banafide consumer of the MICROMAX product sold out to him. Customer Care Centre is not personally liable to the complainant as he is not the consumer under him. The MICROMAX has no manufacturing unit in India as it is a China based company and the complainant had no occasion to meet his grievances approaching the Company directly so being the seller of the mobile set O.P. No.1 ought to have taken utmost care so that his bona fide customer should not get any sufferance by purchasing a defective mobile set.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Forum come to a conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 being the seller of the subject matter of the case and as such the sufferance of the bona fide customer should be compensated by the seller himself as the manufacturer is not available.
All the points are hereby settled accordingly in favour of the complainant according to the merit of this case.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that the complaint case u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is hereby allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 and ex parte against rest opposite parties. O.P. No.1 is hereby directed either to replace the MICROMAX Mobile Set of the same brand and standard to the complainant getting back the sold out mobile set from the complainant and in addition pay him Rs.5000/-as compensation for his sufferance within a month or pay Rs.10750/-to the complainant instead of replacement within a month failing which interest @ of 8% p.a. shall be carried on and also the petitioner will be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let a copy of this order be given to each of the parties free of cost.
