Complaint filed on: 17-09-2018 Disposed on: 28-01-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.85/2018
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2019
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER
Complainant: -
G.Sreepathi,
S/o. Late H.Ganapathi Pandith,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o. Sri Ramashraya,
4th Main Road,
Shivamookambika Nagara,
S.S.Puram Post,
Tumakuru-572 102
(In-person)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
- The Authorized Signatory/ Manager/ Director
M/s.Micro Max Informatics Ltd,
21/14-A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-28
- The Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory,
M/s. Cellular point, V.S.Complex,
Opp. to Gayathri Theatre,
BH Road, Tumakuru-572 101
- The Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Micromax Service Centre, Imfana Communications, KNS Towers, Ibak Iceshop near,
Tumakuru
(OP No.1 & 3-Ex-parte)
(OP No.2-by advocate Sri.Zafrulla Khan)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint was filed this complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.2 and 3 to repay the cost of the mobile set along with 9% interest from the date of complaint to till the date of payment and to pay Rs.40,000=00 towards compensation, Rs.30,000=00 towards damages, Rs.10,000=00 towards cost along with legal notice charges of Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
On 31-10-2017, the complainant has purchased MICROMAX Q 440 by paying an amount of Rs.5,000=00 from the 2nd OP vide invoice No.A15797. The said mobile was manufactured by the 1st OP and 2nd OP is the dealer and the 3rd OP is the service centre of the 1st OP.
The complainant submitted that, at the time of purchase, the 2nd OP has issued a warranty statement by leaving blank signature and not affixing the shop seal and signature of the 2nd OP. Hence it is clearly established that, the 2nd OP has adopted unfair trade practice for making wrongful gains from the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that, on 4-8-2018 onwards the complainant has visited the 2nd OP shop three times and the 2nd OP has directed the complainant to approach the 3rd OP who is service centre of the above said mobile handset. Accordingly, on 27-8-2018 the complainant visited the 3rd OP at 5.30 p.m. and the 3rd OP had received the above said mobile handset and prepared job sheet. The complainant further submitted that, one lady who is sitting in front of the shop, she has refused to give acknowledgement for retaining the above said defective mobile handset and informed the complainant to collect the status of the mobile handset on 28-8-2018. The complainant further submitted that, the complainant has denied to hand over the same due to non-receipt of acknowledgement by the 3rd OP, and the same was collected the defective handset back from the 3rd OP and informed them that, he will proceed against them by filing a case against all the Ops. The OPs instead of giving positive answer, the 3rd OP had given rude answer. Hence, the complainant has faced service deficiency and mental agony. So the Ops have failed to provide proper service to the complainant due to their negligence.
The complainant further submitted that, the 2nd OP has sold the said defective mobile handset and printing his own conditions on the back side of the invoice according to his own whims and fancies, to escape from his liabilities. Hence it is clearly substantiate that, the 2nd OP is doing unfair trade practice for making wrongful gains in illegal manner.
The complainant further submitted that, the above said mobile handset sold by the 2nd OP started giving problem within warranty period and the 3rd OP failed to provide proper service. Hence the Ops are equally liable to bear their responsibility. On 30-8-2018 the complainant has issued a legal notice to the Ops through REPAD and the said notice duly served on the Ops, but the Ops have not replied to the said notice nor return the cost of defective mobile handset. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
3. In response to the forum notice, the 2nd OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objections. The OP No.1 and 3 did not appear before the forum and they were called out absent and they have been placed exparte.
4. In the version, the 2nd OP submitted that, averments made in the complaint are all denied as false and baseless. The complaint is frivolous and concocted for the purpose of filing of the complaint just to harass the 2nd OP. The 2nd OP is the seller of the mobile handset of various companies and having a good reputation in the market. The 2nd OP is no way connected with the defects of the mobile phone after sales and it is the duty of the manufacturing company and its service station.
Without prejudice, the 2nd OP submitted that, the 2nd OP sold the Micromax Q 440 mobile handset to the complainant as a box piece. The complainant purchased the mobile handset after thorough inspection and after his satisfaction. The complainant has used the mobile handset in a good condition.
The 2nd OP submitted that, the complainant has not stated any specific defects in the mobile handset and just to keep on repeating defective mobile handset in the complaint. The complainant wants to make unlawful gains from the Ops by using the mobile handset till the fag end of the warranty period and to get illegal gains by filing false complaint. The complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.
The 2nd OP further submitted that, the complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service which is utterly false and the complainant has caused mental agony to the 2nd OP. The 2nd OP has given good service to the complainant and the complainant wants to tarnish and defame the reputation of the mobile shop. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd OP. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the ends of justice and equity.
5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and 2nd OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents, which were marked as Ex-C1 to C6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.
6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 as alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
8. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased a MICROMAX Q 440 by paying an amount of Rs.5,000=00 from the 2nd OP, as per Ex-C1. It is also an admitted fact that, the above mobile handset is also having one year warranty, as per Ex-C2.
9. The allegation of the complainant is that, the 2nd OP had sold the above said defective mobile handset to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has approached the 3rd OP service centre. The 3rd OP has received the mobile handset and written job sheet, but the 3rd OP had refused to give acknowledgement for collecting the above said handset. Hence, the complainant had received back the defective handset. Due to negligence, the 3rd OP has failed to provide proper service to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for deficiency in service.
10. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence, except issuing a legal notice against the Ops dated 30-8-2018. Moreover, the complainant has also not specifically mentioned the problem of the above said mobile handset in his complaint or affidavit evidence. Further, the complainant has also failed to produce any expert opinion to prove that, the above said disputed mobile handset is having defect. Only on the basis of mere allegation through affidavit without any documentary evidence, we cannot come to conclusion that, there is a problem in the above said mobile handset under the warranty period. Hence, on the above discussion made hitherto, we come to conclusion that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28th day of January 2019).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
