COMPLAINT FILED ON:08.08.2011
DISPOSED ON:04.02.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
4th DAY OF FEBRUARY-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1469/2011
ComplainaNT | M.Ramesh, Advocate, S/o Muniyappa, Aged about 42 years, Resi:No.8/47, 4th Block, Gopalappa Garden, Doddabommasandra, Bangalore-560 097. Office at: No.4, 3rd Cross, East Link Road, ‘A’ Street, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. Reliance Communication Outlet, No.22/1, Jaladarshini Layout, New BEL Road, RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560 094, By its Manager. Placed Ex-parte. 2.Numaric Communication Services, Pankaj Plaza, Nom 676/2, 20th Cross, II Block, Rajajinagar, (Near Navarang Theater), Bangalore-560 010, By its Manager. In person. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to refund the cost of handset sum of Rs.4,200/- and Rs.10,000/- damages on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
On 17.02.2011 the complainant purchased 1 No.MICROMAX C350 Handset worth of Rs.4,200/- from OP1. In the cash bill issued the seal of OP2 is stamped, who are the service centre of the OP1. Within a period of 3 months i.e,. on 17.05.2011, the complainant observed major functionary problems with the handset. The set was repeatedly hanging. Hence, as suggested by the OP1 on 17.05.2011, the complainant had entrusted the defective handset to OP2. The handset is covered under the guarantee period, it is more than 2½ months and on all the occasions when the complainant approached the Ops, they are not giving proper response. As per the guarantee, the Ops shall either attend to the repair within a reasonable period or shall replace the defective set with a brand new set. The deliberate inaction on the part of the Ops is causing mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant besides insult, humiliation and financial loss. The complainant is a practicing Advocate. He is unable to keep in touch with his clients and the same is causing greatest financial loss to the complainant. The legal notice dt.18.06.2011 was issued to the Ops. In spite of service of notice, there is no proper response from the Ops. When the complainant informed Ops that if they fail to replace new set or refund the cost of the handset, the complainant will approach this Forum, the Ops showed their disrespect uttering that “No Court can do anything to them, the complainant go to Court or to hell. Hence the complaint.
3. In spite of service of notice, OP1 failed to appear without any justifiable cause, hence placed ex-parte.
4. OP2 appeared in person and filed version contenting that OP2 has no direct link with any Dealer, it is only Authorized Service Centre for MICROMAX Mobile phone for officially phone sold by any Dealers. It is denied that OP2 is the Service Center of OP1. It is admitted that OP2 received handset on 17.05.2011 from the complainant. Considering the nature of problem (intermittent) they have decided to escalate the mobile phone to Micromax higher level (L4) Service Center in Delhi. Accordingly, they have informed the complainant that it will take some time to replace the mother board and they would inform him as soon as they receive the same. The repair of the mobile phone was delayed in L4 and received on 27.07.2011. After receiving the legal notice, OP2 contacted the complainant and informed him about the delay & offered the standby handset for which the complainant agreed. However, the complainant did not turn up of in spite of several requests. OP2 totally deny averment regarding the disrespect shown. OP2 as directed by this Forum obtained the new mobile phone form MICROMAX. The complainant did not attend the last two hearing dates. OP2 contacted the complainant to handover the handset, but the complainant refused to accept. There is no deficiency of services, considering the limited responsibility of OP2 as an authorized Service Centre, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OP2.
5. The complainant filed affidavit evidence in support of the complaint averments, the Proprietor of OP2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved
deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled
for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
8. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Affirmative as against OP1.
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
9.From the complaint averments and the documents produced along with affidavit evidence of the complainant, it becomes clear that on 17.02.2011 the complainant purchased MICROMAX C350 handset for Rs.4,200/- from its authorized Dealer. OP1 under cash bill No.2445, the same is marked as Document No.1. OP2 is authorized Service Centre within 3 months of purchase of the handset i.e., on 17.05.2011, the complainant observed major functionary problems with the handset. The set was repeatedly hanging. Hence he entrusted the defective handset to OP2 for service as suggested by OP1. Thereafter, OP2 could not attend the service immediately as OP2 decided escalate the mobile phone to MICROMAX high level (L4) Service Center in Delhi. Because of that there was delay in attending the repairs and that handset was received on 27.07.2011 from Delhi and the same was informed to the complainant. Thus it becomes clear that the mobile handset sold by OP1 was defective, as within 3 months of the purchase of the handset, the same was found not functioning properly as it required replacement of the mother board. The complainant being a practicing Advocate approached OP1 and 2 to get back the handset repaired but there was delay in attending the services as OP2 had sent the same to service centre in Delhi. OP2 cannot be held responsible for the defective handset supplied by OP1. OP2 is only an authorized Service Center. OP1 being the Authorized Dealer of the handset, having supplied defective handset is responsible to refund the amount received towards cost of the handset. Thus the act of OP1 in supplying the defective handset is clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. OP1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.4,200/- and get the handset from OP2 which was entrusted for service by the complainant. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP1 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,200/- being the cost of the handset supplied to the complainant and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and get back the handset from OP2 entrusted for service by the complainant.
The complaint against OP2 stands dismissed.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of February– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
