BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.

COMPLAINT NO: 42/2017

Date of disposal: 21.06.2017
 

                                                                                               P r e  s e n t:                       

                                                Smt.C.H.SamiunnisaAbrar, B.A., LLB   :  President

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

Complainant :  1.     Sri Ravi Veeresh Boragavi.

                                Age:Major,

                                R/o: B-262, Kaiga Township,

                                Mallapur – 581400

                                Dist: Uttar Kannada

                                M - 9481714433

                                                                                (Rep.by In-Person)

                                                              V/S

Respondent/s: 1.     CEO

                                Head Office,

                                Micromax House.

                                90B, Sector-18,

                                Gurgaon – 122015. 

                               (Rep.by Sri.A.M.Malipatil)       

                        2.     The Proprietor.

                                Micromax Customer Care Centre.

                               M/s Sri Ragavendra Enterprises,1^st floor, Ram Krishna Square,

                               Shri Laxmi Shakti Theatre Complex, Coen Road,

                              Hubballi.

                                         (Absent)

JUDGMENT DELIVRED BY

SMT. C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

       The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against OP.

1.     The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Micromax E 313 being IMEI No: 911441757746551/911441758796555 on 07/5/2016 for Rs.6,199/- through Flipkart wide invoice dated:07.05.2016.  The complainant alleged that the mobile has technical problem and the above said mobile carries one year manufacture warranty the said problem was reported to OP No.2 who is the authorized service center on 03.11.2016 to resolve the mobile complaint, after a week the service center handed over the mobile stating that the problem of complainant is resolved.

2.     After 10 to 15 days same technical problem arises Complainant submits that again he called the customer care and they suggested him that it should be handed over to nearest Micromax service center believing the words of the customer care it has been handed over to the Op No.2. Op No.2 issued a receipt (Job card). Further Complainant submits that after 15 days enquired about the mobile, Op No.2 said that you don’t come to the service center oftenly and asked him to come on 27.01.2017. Since the Complainant resides at Mallapur Uttar Kannada district. The father-in-law and brother-in-law visited the Op No.2 service center many times finally on 27.01.2017 Complainant’s brother-in-law visited to the Op no.2 and Op No.2 handed over New Mobile i.e. Micromax 8290 the configuration of this mobile is almost lower than the defective mobile, same has been informed to complainant by complainants brother-in-law complainant refused to take that mobile and again it has been returned to OP No.2, Op No.2 gave assurance that within a week he will replace the mobile in question with the higher configuration but Op’s failed to do so, Complainant further submits that, again Op No.2 gave another mobile i.e. Q413 the said mobile is also of a lower configuration, and hence complainant demanded “Micromax Canvas 6” which cost Rs.9,400/- and complainant was ready to pay the difference amount of Rs.3,300/- in spite of request Op’s have not agreed and stated that it is not as per their policy and asked the complainant to provide another 15 days additional time to resolve the long pending issue of defective mobile.

3.     Further, Complainant submits that after so many correspondence Op’s not headed his request and made deficiency in service, hence Complainant prayed to leave the heaviest penalty and other relives.

4.     The Complaint is registered notices were issued to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through his advocate but not filed written version nor come forward to lead the evidence on the other hand Op no.2 remained absent and placed exparte. 

5.  On the back ground of the above said pleadings, the complainant himself examined before this Forum and  filed the documents as C-1 to C-5 and the documents are follows;

Heard arguments of both sides.

Now the points that arises for our consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the OP made  any deficiency in service?

            2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief?

            3. What Order?

6.   On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the complainant, we answer the above points as under

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

POINT NO.1 and 2: Since point 1 and 2 are interlinked and identical to avoid the repetition of the fact we process both the points together for adjudication.

7.     The complainant submits that he had purchased a mobile phone of  Micromax E313 on 17.05.2016 by paying Rs. 6,199/-IMEI No. 11441757746551/911441758796555.The said handset started to give technical problems. Since the complainant approached to the service center (Op No.2),but service center of Op No.1 not resolved the issues and consequently the handset was not returned to the complainant. The complainant and his father-in-law repeatedly visited the Service Centre, But Op No.1 tried to replace the mobile in question with lower end mobile, the Complainant refused to accept it. But the Service center did not bothered about the issue of the Complaint, then the complainant approached this forum.

8.     After service of the notice from the forum both the OP’s had not shown their interest to defend their case.

9.   We have heard the Complainant and ongoing through the records on file it is clear that Complainant had purchased the above said mobile and Doc No.C3 speaks that Complainant had handed over the said mobile to the Op No.2 on 30.11.2016 but in this job card it is clear that there is no conflict on warranty and the problem reported in this job card is that Audio poor and Outgoing Audio quality this is also clear that the said handset was handed over to Op No.2 i.e. Authorized service center of Op No.1, Moreover Complainant also corresponded with the OP No.1 continuously and Op No.1 assured to replace the handset with  a new and resolve the problem of Complainant than it is very much clear that OP’s have made deficiency in service. Resultantly Complainant is entitled for relief, hence we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 is Partly Affirmative.

10. POINT No.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following: 

ORDER

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.
2. Op No.1 and 2 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 6,199/- /-(Rupees Six thousand one hundred Ninety nine only) to the Complainant.
3. Further both the OP’s are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards unfair trade practice & Rs.1000 (Rupees One thousand only) towards cost of litigation.
4. Further OP’s are directed to comply this order within 30 days failing which Op’s are liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing this Complaint till realization.
5. Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.