West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/140/2014

Rubu Pan Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The In Charge, Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.140/2014                                                                                             Date of disposal: 31/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  XXXXXXXXXX       

      

        For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.S. Panda, Advocate.

       For the Defendant/O.P.S.                         : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

 

 

         Rupa Pan Bera, W/o.Sri Bejoy Kumar Bera, B.D.O. Office Quarter No.2, Kuikota, P.O.

        Abas, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.Paschim Medinipur…..Complainant.

 

Vs.

           

1)The In-Charge, Micromax Information Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Nayaina Industrial Area, Delhi.110028;

2)The In-Charge, Micromax Information Ltd., 90B, Sector-18, Gurgan, Hariyana.122015;

3)The In-Charge, Photo Copier Centre, Sepoy Bazar, Midnapore Town, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.Paschim Medinipur;

4)The In-Charge, Authorized Service Center of Micromax Informatics Ltd., Midnapore Center, Station Road, Burdge Town, P.S. Kotwali, Dist.Paschim Medinipur.………..Ops.

                                                           

    Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

 

    Complainant is present. Today is fixed for ex-parte hearing. Hd. Ld. Advocate and perused the documents. It appears from the record that the Op.No.3 is avoiding his appearance despite having received the notice but refused to receive the notice. Thus there exists strong reason to believe that the Op. is avoiding his appearance in this case. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed relevant documents on the point of service of notice. In view of the present circumstances and the material on records there are no options but to hear the case ex-parte.

Contd………..P/2

 

 

 

-( 2 ) -

   Accordingly the case is heard and considered.

   The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile Model  being IMEL No- 911362652429939 on 05/07/2014 from the Photo Copier Centre Sepoy Bazar the Op. No.3. After purchase the complainant started to use the new Mobile but just after five days the complainant faced a problem when the Complainant received any call in her mobile. The Complainant then rushed to the show room i.e. Op. no.3 wherefrom the complainant                                                                                

purchased the mobile. Op. No.3 advised her to go to the authorized service centre of Micromax Care at station road and as per instruction the Complainant deposited her new mobile on 14/07/2014 and with request to replace the same but the Micromax Care did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant requested the in-charge of Micromax Care for replacement of the mobile but the in-charge replied that he could not replace the mobile without permission of company.

  Thereafter the complainant sent a letter through e-mail id of company service Superfore at the rate micromaxinfo.com on 21/08/2014 but on 09/10/2014 the Op. No.3 denied and said that they could not replace the mobile but the Op. No.3 assured the Complainant to extend the period of warranty.

  The Complainant could not use her new purchased mobile due to mechanically/ manufacturing defect. More than two months was lapsed for doing the repairing work and due to manufacturing defect the complainant deprived from use of her new mobile and the Op. has failed to provide any service to their customer/ Complainant.

  Under the above circumstances having no other way the complainant has come before the Forum for relief with a prayer either to replace the mobile or to refund the purchased money and relief or reliefs as the Op. has pick up unfair trade practice. In this connection some documents namely

1)Copy of tax-invoice.

2)Copy of receipt of authorized letter.

3)Copy of intimation letter.

4)Copy of warranty card relevant.

5)Copy of sale receipt.

6)Copy of warranty Card.

              We have carefully considered the case supported by the above documentary evidence.

In view of the facts it is crystal clear that the Op. avoids to replace the defective mobile set or to repair the set of the Complainant.

  Contd………..P/3

 

 

 

-( 3 ) -

            The Complainant do get the purchased money of mobile with up to date interest or to replace the mobile hand set by a new one.

           There is no claim against the Op. no.4.

            Op. no. 3 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only for mental pain and agony and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) only to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order in default the Complainant is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provision of law in this behalf.  

 Dictated & Corrected by me

              

            Member                                                                                           President

                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.