BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-16/2015
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Jayesh Soni,aged about 26 years,
S/O-Ramesh Kumar Soni,
R/O- Deheripali,P.O- Budharaja,
P.S-Ainthapali,Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- The Customer Care Supporter,
Micromax Informatics Ltd,
27/14A, Naraina Industrial Area,
Phase-II, 908, Sector-18,
Gurgaon , Haryana-122015.
- SAI Electronics,
G.M. College Road,Sambalpur.
- R.R Mobiles,
Near Shrusti Nurshing Home,
At/P.O- Budharaja,
P.S-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.…O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- P.M.Dash, Advocate
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 24.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 08.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile hand set of model A-102, 1 GB RAM KITKAT Version from SAI Electronics, Sambalpur who is the O.P-2 in this case on payment of Rs.8,700/- dtd. 26.06.2014 vide cash memo no-34026. After one-two months of use the mobile handset, the Complainant faced problem with network fluctuation issues. The other problems like- mobile hang, No-SIM dialogue on the display, having facility to support 1 GB RAM but supporting 512 MB RAM etc were also faced by the Complainant. He made contact with the O.P-2, narrated the defects and requested him to replace the same as it was within warranty period but the O.P-2 expressed his inability to do so but advised him to meet O.P-3 who is the authorised service centre of the Micromax Co. Ltd. The Complainant deposited his mobile with the O.P-3 on dtd. 24.07.2014. The O.P-3 replaced the defective mobile of the Complainant and provided a new handset on dtd. 13.09.2014 which was also found defective. Again the Complainant visited to the O.P-3 on dtd. 18.09.2014 and 05.11.2014 but he could not be able to remove the defects rather misbehaved the Complainant. The Complainant finding no way sent a legal notice through registry post to the O.Ps on dtd. 03.01.2015 but no response was received. On dtd. 18.02.2015 the Complainant received a SMS from Micromax service to receive the mobile from O.P-3 and on reaching the O.P-3 in spite of giving the mobile misbehaved him anyway. For the harassment and mental agony given by the O.Ps the Complainant files this petition to seek redressal from this Commission as prayed.
The O.P-1,2 & 3 despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1,2 & 3 are ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Micromax mobile handset from a dealer SAI Electronics, Sambalpur on payment of consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said mobile handset after using the same for some months. After several visits to the O.P-3, has replaced the defective mobile in place of a new one but when this new mobile also shown certain problems he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the said handset was within warranty period. The O.P-3 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the manufacturer. But OPs were at least required to repair or replace it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective mobile phone to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7th September, 2017. Hence the O.Ps has committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile handset and provide him a brand new Mobile Handset of same make and model i.e. make Micromax mobile hand set of model A-102, 1 GB RAM, KITKAT Version or refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.8,700/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 11.03.2015 till its realisation." The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand)as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 8th day of March-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
