BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.63-2014

DATED ON THIS THE 3^rd June 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, seeking direction to replace the defective tablet with defect free tablet or to pay the cost of the tablet with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase, compensation of `50,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience with litigation expenses of `2,000/- and other reliefs.
2.     The complainant purchased a micromax tablet from opposite party No.2, on 14.10.2013, for a sum of `8,199/-.  Problems developed in the tablet, submitted the same to opposite party No.3 for rectification on 14.11.2013.  But, opposite party No.3 failed to rectify and to remove the defects.  As such, aggrieved complainant filed the complaint against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party No.1, though represented through his counsel, failed to file its version.
4.     Opposite party Nos.2 and 3, did not appear, even after service of notice, hence placed exparte.
5.     The complainant filed her affidavit to prove the facts with two documents.  The opposite party No.1 failed to lead evidence.  The counsel for complainant filed written arguments and made oral submissions.  On perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service in not rectifying and removing the defects in the tablet by the opposite parties and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchased the micromax tablet manufactured by opposite party No.1, from its dealer opposite party No.2, on payment of `8,199/- on 14.10.2013 for personal usage of her daughter.  Therefore, under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, the complainant comes under the purview of the term “consumer”.  As such, the complaint is maintainable.  Hence, point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
9.    Point No.2:- The Micromax tablet purchased by the complainant, had developed certain problems.  The product was within warranty period.  As such, the complainant submitted the tablet to the authorised service centre (i.e. opposite party No.3) of opposite party No.1 at Mysuru on 14.11.2013, and requested for removal of the defects in the products.  But, the opposite party No.3 fail to remove the defects.  Thereby, caused mental agony to the complainant.  The aggrieved complainant sought for the replacement of the defect free new tablet or else, sought for refund of the entire amount, along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase.  Further, sought compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony caused along with litigation expenses.
10. The opposite party No.1 failed to defend the allegations by leading evidence.
11. The purchase invoice established the purchase of the tablet by complainant.  The acknowledgement issued by the opposite party No.3, for having received the products for rectification established that, the product suffered with defects and was handed over to opposite party No.3, for rectification on 14.11.2013, i.e. well within the warranty period.  In absence of any defence from opposite party Nos.1 and 3, the complainant established the failure to remove the defect found in the product, which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence, the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable for replacement of the defective/tablet by defect free tablet or else, refund the cost of the tablet with 18% interest p.a., by accepting the defective tablet from the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective tablet by defect free new tablet of same cost or else, pay the cost of the tablet i.e. `8,199/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase, till compliance, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.
3. The complainant is directed to return the tablet on compliance of the order.
4. The opposite party Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally shall pay a sum of `3,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony, hardship caused due to deficiency in service and `2,000/- towards litigation expenses, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.
5. In default to comply, the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of `5,000/-, until compliance made.
6. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.1 and 3 shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
7. Complaint dismissed against opposite party No.2.
8. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd June 2016)