West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/16/100

SHRI PRAVASH KUMAR MAHAPATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE CUSTOMER CARE OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

D . MUKHOPADHYAY

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that on 02.03.2016 complainant purchased one Micromax Cellular handset phone from Remix Center, Netaji more Siliguri, Dist.- Jalpaiguri, the OP No.3 by paying cash of Rs. 9200/- and a cash memo to that effect was issued by OP No.3 with a warranty card applicable for12 months from the date of original purchase of the same but the required columns of said warranty card were not filled up at the relevant time which was brought to the notice of Op no. 3 by the complainant.  From the very beginning the said mobile set started giving trouble to the complainant mainly for its outgoing audio quality while OP No.3 on being informed instructed the complainant to wait for few days for its proper activation but the mobile set continued to give trouble and then OP No. 3 to asked the complaint to meet OP No.2, M/S Hripag Technology situated at Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Darjeeling, being the repairing agent of Micromax for getting it repaired.  OP No.2 on receiving the mobile set on 14.3.2016 issued job sheet to the wife of the

Condt…P/2

-:2:-

complainant, Smt. Rashmita Mahapatra indicating defects of the said and OP No.2 thus took more than a month for a repair and returned the same by the end of the April, 2016.  After few days of that the mobile set again started trouble and on getting information OP No.2 again requested complainant to deposit the mobile set to him for doing further repairs works and that was so deposited on 27.06.2016 and a job-sheet was issued.  After repairs the mobile set was again handed over to the complainant by OP No.2 in the last week of July, 2016. But the mobile set still was not working properly and complainant approached to customer care officer Micromax Informatics Ltd., Haryana, OP No.1 and then OP No.1 requested the complainant to inform the OP No.2 to contact the customer care officer, Haryana over phone for instruction from him but OP No.2 told the complainant that the phone set might have suffered from manufacturing defect and thus complainant became harassed and deprived from using his newly purchased phone due to its defects, hence, this case, with a prayer for direction upon the OPs to replace the phone set or to pay the purchase money of the same with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint to the date of realization and complainant also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation due to harassment and mental agony  as well as another sum of Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.   It is to be noted that by virtue of order dtd. 11.04.2017 the case has been running ex-parte against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 but OP No.3 has been contesting this case by filing written version as well as affidavit-in-chief though it is found that no written notes on argument is filed from OP No.3 and this OP also did not take any steps on the date of argument and none was found available so argument orally was heard only from the side of the complainant and ultimately date of passing final order was fixed. 

On the basis of the relevant materials on case record the following issues are framed for the determination of this case.

1. Is the complainant rightly a consumer as per definition of the term ‘consumer’ of the C.P. Act. 1986?
2. Has there been any deficiency in service upon the complainant from the side of the OPs?
3. Has there been any unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs upon the complainant?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the four issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and consideration.

It is the case of the complainant that immediately after purchase of the Micromax Cellular handset phone (model canvas tab, P-690) from OP No.3 by paying cash of Rs. 9200/- on

Condt…P/3

-:3:-

 

02.03.2016 the said set had been given trouble primarily at it’s audio system particularly during outgoing calls and thereafter even after repairs by the OP No.2 the phone set additionally became defective with hang position.  Complainant filed the cash memo in original as issued by OP No.3 as well as the job-sheets issued by OP No.2 dtd. 14.03.2016 and 27.06.2016.  This OP No.2 being service center of Micromax Company is situated well within the territorial jurisdiction  of this Consumer Forum.  From the two job-sheets it is clearly found that the phone set was in poor outgoing sound and that was in hung condition and in the first job-sheet it is mentioned that the phone set had no outgoing audio and this job-sheet is of dtd. 14.03.2016 and it is to be remembered that cash memo shows that the phone was purchased on 02.03.2016.  Thus from these documents on record it is palpably clear that the purchased mobile set had been with manufacturing defect.  In this context it is found the contesting OP from whom mobile set was purchased in the written version as well as in the evidence stated that complainant avoided to mention in the complaint clause nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the cash memo and for that reason complainant has had no jurisdiction to file this case before this Forum.  In this respect we have gone through the said clauses but it appears to us that those clauses are not applicable here in this case as OP No.2 being service center has been approved by the OP No.1, the company itself which OP No.2 has been functioning as a service center well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is admitted that the mobile set of the complainant has been sold by the OP No.3 on the date and price as mentioned in the Paragraph-4 of the complainant.  There remains no doubt in it that the complainant by paying cash of Rs. 9200/- purchased the mobile set from OP No.3 with the hope of using the same but he suffered a lot while the mobile set got troubled within 15 days of the said purchase.  Be it noted here that as per section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 1986 the complainant is a right consumer to file the instant case having proper territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The defect detected over the mobile set within 15 days of the purchase of the same is no doubt a manufacturing defect but as seller of the said set in lieu of consideration money paid, the OP No.3 cannot and should not exempt himself from the liability of handing over a defective goods.  During consideration of this case, under the facts and circumstances, on going through the relevant materials on case record especially the documents produced by the complainant it is established before us that on such purchase of defective mobile set(Tab) the complainant suffered a lot and on this count it can safely be said that both the OP Nos. 1 & 3 are liable for that harassment of the complainant and here lies the decision of this Forum that there was/has been certainly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice upon the complainant committed in this case from the side of both OP Nos. 1 & 3.  We are at the same time of

Condt…P/4

-:4:-

 

the considered view that in between these acts of the OP Nos. 1 & 3 no such effective role was there of the OP No.2 and thus OP No.2 is exempted from its liability towards the harassment of the complainant. The complainant has been able to prove his case and all the issues are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainant.  The complainant is entitled to get the relief/reliefs in the case but it the following manner as ordered.

Proper fees paid. Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D,

that the instant consumer case no. 100-S-2016 be and same is only allowed in part on ex-parte against OP Nos. 1& 3 with cost and dismissed against OP No. 2 on contest. 

The OP Nos. 1 & 3 are severally and jointly directed pay a sum of Rs. 9200/- as refund of the purchase price of the mobile set being model Micromax Canvas Tab P-690 calculating thereon an interest of 6% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. since 02.03.2016 till its full realization within 45 days from this date of order to the complainant. 

Both the OPs i.e., OP Nos. 1 & 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant on the cause of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

 Both these OP Nos. 1 & 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand) to the complainant as cost of litigation. 

The total amount as mentioned above shall be paid jointly and severally by the OP Nos. 1 & 3 to the complainant within 45 days from this date failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum until it is paid fully and the complainant is at liberty to put this order/decree in execution on expiry of such 45 days.  

Let a copy of this final order/judgment be given/sent to all the parties to this case free of cost at once.