BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.26/2015

Dated this the 8^th day of February 2016

Rosario, son of Irudayasamy

No.21, 10^th Cross Road

Periyar Nagar, Nellithope

Puducherry – 605 005.

                             ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. The Branch Manager                

    Poorvika Mobile Private Ltd.,    

    Old No. 6/39, New No. 183C           

    Maraimalai Adigal Salai

   (Opposite to new bus stand)

   Puducherry – 605 005.

2. Micromax Service Centre

    M/S G-Tech

    No. 565, Kamaraj Salai,     

    Puducherry – 605 013.     

3. Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

    Plot No.234, HPSIDC Industrail area

    Tehsil Nalagarh, Dist. Solan (HO)-173205

                                                                             ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

          Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

          MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT           : Dr. R. Ramalingam,  Advocate.

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES   : Exparte   

(Thiru K. Kodeeswaran, Advocate

for OP1)

O R  D  E  R

(By    Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President )

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with 12% interest from the date of decree because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant purchased a Micromax Tab Model-P 410 vide invoice No. 1267 for Rs.8800/- on 20.04.2014 from first Opposite Party.  Within a few days, the mobile was in bad repair and the complainant approached the second Opposite Party in June 2014 to mend the mobile because of the perennial problem who installed some software in the instrument and returned to the complainant.  Within a number of days, the mobile was under bad repair once again and the complainant approached the Micromax Service Centre in September 2014.  The authority concerned informed the complainant that the manufacture or the production of the mobile was ceased and assured the complainant that the mobile would be replaced within a short span of time and asked to come on some other day or next week.  Finally, on 12.11.2014 the authority concerned gave another mobile (Micromax A101) for replacement and asked the complainant to charge the mobile for six houses continuously.  After completion of charging, the instrument did not work properly.  The complainant approached the Manager of Micromax Service Centre on 13.11.2014 who told that there was unknown problem in that mobile and assured that he would replace with another mobile n good condition.  But the authority concerned did not give proper reply to the  complainant.  The second opposite party issued job sheet dated 13.11.2014 and retrained the mobile which is under bad repair with him.  He did not either give back the mobile or replace it.  The complainant sent notice dated 24.1.2015 to the Opposite Parties the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 received the same but did not reply and the notice sent to third Opposite Party was returned with remark of "Left".  The complainant suffered severe mental agony in making so many attempts to receive the replaced instrument in good condition and spent valuable working time and money.  Hence this complaint.

3.       All the opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.       The complainant has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C5.

5.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether any deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties to the complainant?

3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.       Point No.1:

          The complainant has purchased one Micromax P410i  Tab model cell phone from the first opposite party duly manufactured by the third opposite party for a valid consideration of Rs.8800/- on 20.04.2014 vide Ex.C1. Hence the complainant is the consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.

7.       Point No.2:

          We have perused the pleadings, exhibits and evidence adduced by the complainant.  The opposite parties were served and remained absent. They were set exparte on 05.08.2015.  It is evident through Ex.C1 that the complainant has purchased one Micromax P410i  Tab model cell phone manufactured by the third opposite party and sold by the first opposite party on 20.04.2014 for Rs.8800/-vide Ex.C1.  Since the said cell phone got repaired, he had handed over the same with the second Opposite Party who installed some software and returned back to the complainant.  Even then, within a short period of time, the instrument got repaired in September 2014 and the second Opposite Party informed that the production of the mobile was ceased and issued a job sheet on 13.11.2014 vide Ex.C2.  On 12.11.2014 the Opposite Party gave another mobile phone i.e. Micromax A101 as replacement and advised the complainant to charge for six hours.  The complainant charged the same as advised by the authority concerned, however, when he tried to switch on the mobile, the instrument did not work properly.  On the next day  i.e. on 13.11.2014 the complainant approached the Manager of the second Opposite Party who told him that there was some unknown problem in that mobile and assured that he would replace with another mobile in good condition, but did not give proper reply.  The complainant submitted that the purpose for which the mobile phone was purchased have not been served and all his efforts were ended in vain.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice Ex.C3, dated 24.1.2015 to the opposite parties.  Ex.C4 is the copies of postal receipts.  The complainant alleged that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 received the notices, but failed to reply and the legal notice sent to Opposite Party No.3 was returned as left vide Ex.C5.

8.       From the above facts and circumstance of the case, the second  opposite party itself has replaced with a new phone as alleged by the complainant.  Further, on perusal of Ex.C1, the complainant has purchased Micromax P410i, with IMEI No. 911356250075409, however, on perusal of Ex.C2, the complainant was given with a replaced cell phone Micromax A101 bearing IMEI No. 911363952194694.  From the above, this Forum has found that the complainant originally purchased a Micromax P410i Tab model which got repaired within a short period of time from the date of purchase and the opposite parties have replaced with another Cell phone on which also, the power does not getting switched on and hence, the complainant has handed over the Micromax A101 also with the second Opposite Party.  Hence, the complainant proved his claim and the opposite parties have also admitted their inefficiency and deficiency in service as per Ex.C2. Further, to refute the allegation of the complainant, the opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum.  Hence to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to allow this complaint in the interest of justice.

9.       Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, the complainant is entitled for the following relief and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

In the result,

1. The opposite parties are directed to return the amount of Rs.8,800/- to the complainant towards the purchase cost of the cell phone;
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-                    towards compensation for the deficiency in service;
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

Dated at Pondicherry on this the 8^th day of February 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

   PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

     MEMBER

        (V.V. STEEPHEN)

               MEMBER

COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS:  NIL

COMPLAINANT’S EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTIES' EXHIBITS:  Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:           NIL

1. ASOKAN)

   PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

     MEMBER

        (V.V. STEEPHEN)

               MEMBER