Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/148/2016

M/s.G.K.Ravi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Head Office Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

-

16 May 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   11.09.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.05.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                

C.C.NO.148/2016

TUESDAY THIS  16^TH  DAY OF MAY 2017

 

Mr. G.K. Ravi,

S/o. G.K. Krishna Murthy,

3/7, Devanthan Street,

Mandavelli,

Chennai 600 028.                                               ..Complainant

                                              ..Vs..

1. M/s. The Micromax Mobile Company,

Rep. by its Managing Director /Authorized person,

The Head Office,

Micromax House,

90B Sector – 18,

Gurgaon Palampur Road,

Pin code 122 015.

 

2. Ms/. Mobi Vision,

Rep. by its Manager / Authorized person,

Old No.61 / New No.149 Kodambakkam High Road,    

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.       

 

3. M/s. The Mobile Store,

Rep. by its Manager / Authorized person,

No.24, old No.543,

P.H.Road,

Chennai 600 084.                                     ..Opposite parties .

 

For the Complainants                 :    M/s. K.Thirukkumaran & other         

For the opposite parties 1 & 2      :    Exparte.

For the opposite party                :    Dismissed

 

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties are jointly and severally to issue refund the value of Rs.15000/- with interest from  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint. 

1.  The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant purchased Micro Max Mobile Canvas Gold A300 model from the 3^rd opposite party on 22.10.2014 on payment of Rs.15,000/- by cash.   Within 10 days of  purchase there was so many complaints in the mobile namely calls were not received and responded properly, the earphone connection also failed as such the complainant was unable to communicate through headphone, the mobile’s blue tooth connection is dropped often, mobile’s battery was fast discharged, mobile hanged frequently and not even single point of tower was detected and while  any outgoing calls were made it gets disconnected of its own and very often the callers voice could not be heard properly. 

  

2.        Due to the above defects the complainant was not able to utilize it properly and he approached the 2^nd opposite party who acknowledged with the job sheet and admitted that the mobile got defected for board problem and told that it would take more than 20 to  25 days as the defected mobile will be sent to the 1^st opposite party for verification.

3.     Thus the defective mobile was not returned even beyond the dead line and the complainant compelled to return the mobile then the 2^nd opposite party replaced with an used mobile phone which bears a different IMEI number.  Therefore the complainant returned the said mobile to the 2^nd opposite party dated 26.11.2015 who issued another job sheet.   Due to cheating action of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant lodged a complaint dated 15.12.2015 even then the 2^nd opposite party refused to return the complainant’s mobile phone.   Being the partner of Mysore Silk palace the complainant had lost many of his clients.    Therefore it caused mental agony and hardship to him.    Hence the above complaint is filed.  

4.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties 1 & 2  did not appear before this forum and therefore they were set exparte.   The opposite party-3 is dismissed as not pressed.   

5.     Though the 1^st  & 2^nd  opposite parties remained exparte this  Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this forum. 

6.     In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A6  are marked. 

7.      The point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  parties as alleged in the complaint?.

 

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

8.   POINT No. :1         

           The facts of the case is that the complainant purchased mobile phone manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and within few days it had several complaints of defects and therefore entrusted the mobile with the 2^nd opposite party who is the service centre for the 1^st opposite party  to repair  but the 2^nd opposite party  failed to return the mobile  after due repair till date.   Ex.A1 is the purchase bill of the mobile phone and Ex.A2 is the job sheet issued by the 2^nd opposite party reveals that the mobile phone was purchased on 22.10.2014 and the mobile was given for repair on 12.10.2015.  Therefore it is proved that the complainant has used the mobile from the date of purchase till the date it was handed over for repair to the 2^nd opposite party.   But in the letter dated 7.2.2016 i.e. Ex.A4 it is seen that the complainant himself had stated that the mobile was working fine and started exhibiting weak signal from September 2015.    On the other hand the complainant pleaded and contended that within 10 days of the purchase mobile phone had several defects which is quite contrary.     

9.        The complainant  raised allegations that on 26.10.2015 the 2^nd opposite party gave another used mobile with different IMEI number instead of the original mobile phone and also issued 2^nd job sheet i.e. Ex.A3 dated 26.11.2015.   But on a careful perusal of the job sheets it is seen that the IMEI number is one and the same in both proves that complainant launched wild allegation against opposite party-2.   

10.    Further the complainant  filed a letter  alleged to be sent to the 1^st opposite party Ex.A4  claiming the mobile phone but he had failed to file the acknowledgment card for receipt of the same or  returned cover by the 1^st opposite party.   However it is pertinent to note that  the mobile phone given to the 2^nd opposite party for repair was not returned till date.   The complainant further contended that he had suffered business loss but no evidence in this forum.  

11.            Further the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not appeared before this forum to refute the contentions of the complainant and remained exparte.  Therefore this forum can draw adverse inference against the opposite parties.    But it is seen from the complaint that the complainant had not attributed any allegations against 1^st opposite party the manufacturer.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party cannot be made liable.  Similarly the complaint not pressed the claim against  the 3^rd opposite party and the case is dismissed as withdrawn against 3^rd opposite party.    

12.      However the 2^nd opposite party who is the service centre of 1^st opposite party is duty bound to rectify the defects and handover the mobile phone to the complainant,  who had failed to do so and committed deficiency in service and is still retaining the mobile phone and has not taken any effort to repair and return the same to the 1^st opposite party.   Therefore this forum is of the considered view that the 2^nd opposite party had committed deficiency in service.

13.     Regarding the claim of the complainant for refund of the cost of the mobile phone along with interest from the opposite parties is not sustainable, because the complainant had failed to establish the manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and also it is proved from the evidence and the documents that the complainant had used the mobile phone nearly one year without any defect.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,  this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled for refund of the cost of the mobile phone from the opposite parties.   The 2^nd  opposite party is directed to return the mobile duly rectifying the defects  within six weeks without imposing any cost as it was within the warranty period.   The 2^nd opposite party is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant towards mental agony sustained by the complainant, since the mobile phone was not duly repaired and handed over to him and the point is answered accordingly.      

14.    POINT No.2.

As per decision arrived in point No.1 the 2^nd opposite party is directed to return the complaint mentioned mobile duly rectified the defects within six weeks and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and  also to pay a  sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the complainant. This complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 3 are dismissed.   Thus point-2 is also answered accordingly.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party is  directed to return the complaint mentioned Micromax canvas gold A300 model mobile duly rectifying the defects without imposing any cost  within six weeks from the date of this order  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  as cost of the complaint to the complainant.  This complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 3 are dismissed.

         The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

              Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  16^th   day  of  May  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents:

Ex.A1- 22.10.2014         - Copy of Invoice bill of mobile.

Ex.A2- 12.10.2013         - Copy of Job sheet of 1^st complaint.

Ex.A3- 26.11.2015         - Copy of Job sheet of 2^nd complaint.

Ex.A4- 7.2.2016    - Copy of representation before fist opposite party.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Police complaint.

Ex.A6- 12.1.2016  - Copy of CSR

 

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:   .. Nil.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.