Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

186/2013

P.Santha Chawhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by its Branch Manager and two others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Akila

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                                          Complaint presented on:  27.09.2013

                                                                             Order pronounced on:  09.09.2016

 

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

 

FRIDAY THE 09^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.186/2013

 

P.Santha Chanthar,

S/o.S.Pavananthi,

Door No.1, II Street,

Vinayagapuram,Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

 

                                                                                    ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s.Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

Rep.by its Branch Manager,

P.O.#10,11,12, PC 26 water tank Road,

(Razak Garden Road)

MMDA Colony,Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

 

2.M/s. SLR Cell Tech,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Shop 8, CISION Complex,

1^st Floor, Montieth Road,Egmore, Chennai -08.

 

3. M/s. Micromax House,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

Pascos Building 90B,

Sector – 18, Gurgaon – 122 015.

	......Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.09.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Akila & M.Manikandhan

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                : M/s.S.Muthuselvam

 

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 Mobile Model 100 A from the 1^st Opposite Party/dealer on 02.10.2012 on payment of consideration of Rs.9,700/-. The said mobile manufactured by the 3^rd Opposite Party and it has one year warranty period. At request of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant insured the mobile with New India Assurance Cellular Insurance Policy. The said mobile was used by the Complainant and while using within two months from the date of purchase of the mobile often used to get hanged. The Complainant handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party for service to rectify the problem. Even after service the same problem continued. Again he gave service and the problem continued. On 25.05.2013 the Complainant gave the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party for the 4^th time with the same fault. The 2^nd Opposite Party requested to give 7 days’ time to rectify the fault. However neither the 2^nd Opposite Party rectified the product nor returned the mobile to the Complainant inspite of several visits made to him by the Complainant. The defective mobile sold to the Complainant and thereby the Opposite Parties indulged unfair trade practice. The act of the Opposite Parties caused loss and mental agony to the Complainant. The Complainant also caused legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 13.08.2013. However the Opposite Parties did not settle the  issue amicably, hence the Complainant  filed this Complaint  to replace the  defective  mobile with new one and also to pay compensation for unfair trade practice & mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. The 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party remained absent and they were set ex-parte.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

          The 1^st Opposite Party admits that the Complainant purchased a mobile from him with one year warranty and also covered with Insurance Policy. At the time of selling the product it was in good condition and functioned properly. Therefore this Opposite Parties did not commit any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.   

4. 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?

5. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile Model A100 on 02.10.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party on payment of consideration of Rs.9,700/- under Ex.A1 and the said mobile also insured with Poorvika & The New India Assurance Cellular Insurance Policy.

          6. The Complainant alleged deficiency that the mobile was  used to get hang frequently within two months from the date of purchase and he approached the 2^nd Opposite Party for service and however the 2^nd Opposite Party has not rectified the problem and for the 4^th time for the very same problem  of hang, he  handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 25.05.2013 and the 2^nd Opposite Party issued Ex.A2 job sheet on the date  and from that date the 2^nd Opposite Party neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile to the Complainant and hence the Opposite Parties sold defective mobile to him and thereby all the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.

          7. Ex.A2 is the proof for entrusting the   mobile phone for service to the 2^nd Opposite Party. In the said job sheet itself the fault mentioned as “Blank display repeated issue”. Therefore Ex.A2 proves that the mobile got frequently hanged and that is why blank display was recorded in Ex.A2 job sheet. The 2^nd Opposite Party did not rectify the product and handed over to the Complainant. This fact was not denied by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Therefore, we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not rectified the problem and delivered the product to the Complainant establishes that the 2^nd Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          8. The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Micro Max Mobile.  In Ex.A2 job sheet itself bears the Micromax name and therefore as per Ex.A2, the 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized service provider of the 3^rd Opposite Party/manufacturer. Therefore, we hold that for the deficiency committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the 3^rd Opposite Party/manufacturer is also liable for the service provider failure and hence we hold that the 3^rd Opposite Party is also liable for the deficiency committed to the Complainant. Further the 2^nd Opposite Party failed to rectify the product even after 4 times irresistible proves that the product is having inherent manufacturing defect. The 1^st Opposite Party is only a dealer and who has sold the product manufactured by the 3^rd Opposite Party and he has nothing to do with the service done by the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence, it is held that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

9. POINT NO :2

          The Complainant sought relief to replace the defective mobile with a new mobile. The mobile is in the custody of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the product is in dispute was rectified thrice by the 2^nd Opposite Party and he could not rectify the product on the 4^th time also and hence he did not deliver the product. In such circumstances instead of ordering to replace the mobile with new one it would be appropriate to order refund of the cost of the product of Rs.9,700/- to the Complainant would be justified. The Complainant is a doctor. since the mobile was not working from 2^nd month of the purchase the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Though we have ordered to refund the amount we have not ordered interest for such amount and the case is pending from the year 2013 onwards, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.   

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.9,700/- (Rupees nine thousand  and seven hundred only ) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen  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 in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 02.10.2012                   Purchased receipt of the subject mobile and

                                                Insurance Policy

 

Ex.A2 dated 25.05.2013                   Job Sheet issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 13.08.2013                   Legal Notice issued by Complainant with

                                                acknowledgement card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                      …… NIL …….

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT