BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER      

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD.

COMPLAINT NO.37/2017

      Date: 30^th day of August, 2017       

                  P r e s e n t:                      

                                                          Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A., LLB   :  President

           Sri.B.S.Keri, B.A., LLB (Spl)                   :   Member

                                                                  V/s

Opposite Parties: -    1. The Authorized Signatory Reliance

                                        Retail Limited, Central Building,

                                        P.B.Road Vidyanagar, Hubli. 580021.

                                   2.  The Authorized Signatory, M/S. Sri.

                                        Raghavendara Enterprises, First

                                        Floor, Ram Krishna Square, Shree

                                        Laxmi Shakti Theatre Complex, 

                                        (Laxmi Mall) Coen Road, Hubli-

                                        580029.

                                  3.  The Authorized Signatory, Reliance

                                        Micromax Information Ltd., 21/14A,

                                        Phase. II, Naroina Industrial Area,

                                        Delhi-110028.

(OP-1 and OP-2 Absent, and OP-3 Rep.by Sri N.M.Hullur, Adv.)

                                                                                JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.     The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased a Micromax P480 3G Tablet, bearing Model Code 7000011784 from the Respondent No.1, and the said product carried product Warranty for one year from the date of purchase.  That the OP No.1, assured that it is good and better working and assured an uninterrupted service by way of the warranty. The complainant submits that the said Tablet, hardly worked properly for about 10 days, thereafter the said product developed a major manufacturing defect because of which it used to display, such commands which was not at all commanded and various other defects in general apart from the continuous and uninterrupted problem of the Battery, complainant approached to the OP No.2 authorised service provider was received the said defective tablet and till date he had not handed over to the complainant further submits that he had visited the OP No.2 several time but the said OP said that a major manufacturing defect is found which cannot be set right. Hence complainant issue a legal notice to the OP on 22.12.2016 but OP No. 1 has purposely not claimed the notice but notice have been duly served to OP 2 and 3 they have neither replied not complied with the notice hence complainant filed this complaint against the OP’s for refund of the Tablet amount along with interest and other reliefs.

3.     The Forum registered the complaint and issued notices to OP’s, OP No. 1 and 2 remained absent OP No.3 present before the Forum. Through his advocate and filed the written version.    

Brief fact of the written version of OP No.3

4.     The Op No.3 submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and further submits that the complainant was not brought it to the knowledge of OP No.3 and pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.      

5.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant filed his affidavit and produced following EX C-1 to C-7. The documents produced are:

1. Ex, C-1 Invoice,             

2. Ex, C-2 Job sheet

3. Ex, C-3 Office copy of legal notice

4. Ex, C-4 and C-5, Acknowledgement 2

5. Ex, C-6 Not claimed postal covered

6. Ex, C-7 Postal Receipts.

6.     On perusal of above documents and arguments heard the points arises before us for adjudications are as follows:

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative 

Point NO.3 – As per the final order.

-:: R E A S O N S ::-

7.  Point No.1 and 2:- The complainant filed this complaint against OPs alleging that Complainant purchased Micromax P480 3G Tablet, bearing Model Code 7000011784 within a few days the said set started giving trouble and it was unfit for easy usage because of lack of battery charging and battery charging defects, battery backup for that, Complainant approached an authorized service center OP No.2, and handed over the tablet to OP No.2, but till today OP No.2 had not repaired the Tablet, despite of visiting to OP No.2, Tablet has not been returned to the Complainant nor repaired the same till today. Inspite of serving the notices OP No.1 and 2, remained absent and OP No.3 filed this formal written version and not filed any supporting documents to defend his case. As per the documents produced by the Complainant Ex, C-1 it is clear that Complainant purchased the mobile with OP No.1 and the Job Cards Ex, C-2 speaks that the Complainant had visited to the Authorized Service Center for repair. As per the Job Cards, it is clear that the Tablet is well within the warranty period and OP No.2 also mentioned that there is no conflict on warranty. As such, it is the duty of the service provider to service the goods properly and respond the customer satisfactorily. Since the Tablet is still with the authorized Service center of OP No.3. OP No.3 mentioned in his written version that he had no knowledge of the same. But OP had received the notice from the complainant as per the Ex C-4, he had not approached to the complainant or else not replied to the notice issued by the complainant. Since OP No.3 had not denied that Op No.2 is not the authorized service center of the company. It is clear that Op No.3 know about the Tablet simply stating that he does not have the knowledge above of the same.  Since it is clear that Ops are practicing unfair trade and made deficiency in service, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 several time but OP’s have not co-operated to the complainant and OP No.2 have not responded to the Complainant properly and made deficiency in service.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that Ops are liable for their act. Since we answer Point No.1 in affirmative and Point No.2 in partly affirmative.    

8.     POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following:

-::O R D E R::-

1.     The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

2.     OP’s are directed to replace the Tablet within 30 (Thirty days) days, failing which OP’s are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.7,462/-(Rupees Seven thousand four hundred sixty two) with interest @ 9% from the date of issuance of job card to the complainant.

3.     Further, failing which Ops are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of issuance of job card, till realization to the complainant.

4.     Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation charges to the complainant.

5.     Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost.