Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/11/2017

D.Chandu, S/o Late D.Muragaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Big C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Madhu Moorthy

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 21.01.2017

Order Date:23.08.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.11/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

D.Chandu,

S/o. late. D.Murugaiah,

D.No.7-14,Vaddipalli,

Durgasamudram Village & Post,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Manager,

            Big C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

            10-14-580, Tilak Road,

            Near Central Park,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         The Managing Director,

            M/s. Micromax,                                                                   

            Plot No.21/14, Block No.A, Phase-II,

            Narayana Industrial Area,

            New Delhi -110 028.

 

3.         The Managing Director,

            M/s. Micromax,

            No.697, Udyog Vihar, Phase–V,

            Gurgaon – 122 015.

            Haryana State.                                                                      …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.08.17 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Madhu Moorthy, counsel for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for causing mental agony to the complainant, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,500/- towards cost of the mobile, and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint, and to pass such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant on 06.02.2016 purchased a Micromax Canvas 4 plus mobile phone with code SERMKOB 0533, IMEI/ESN No.911374001850442/911374001951448, for Rs.8,400/- with a warranty of one year from opposite party No.1. After purchase, the complainant came to know that the mobile phone is unable to catch the signals and no outgoing calls. If any call comes out from the same, it will drop abruptly / call dropping. Therefore, the complainant approached opposite party No.1, and he requested the complainant to approach the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3. In the month of March 2016, complainant approached the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 and handed over the mobile and explained the problems in the phone. About 5 days thereafter, the mobile phone was delivered back, but the problems were not rectified. Again in the month of May 2016, complainant handed over the mobile phone to service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 narrating the problems. After 4 days the mobile was returned stating that all the problems were rectified, infact the problems were continued. Therefore, on 11.06.2016 again the complainant gave the mobile to service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 for the same problems, but they were not rectified. On 16.07.2016, the complainant handed over the mobile to service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3, but the phone was retained with them and till date it was neither returned nor rectified the problems. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 16.08.2016. Though the notice was received by all the opposite parties, they neither rectified the mobile and returned it to the complainant nor gave reply to the notice. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite parties 1 to 3, though received notices in the complaint, they remained exparte, even without making their appearance.

            4.  The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. He also filed his written arguments. Heard the counsel for complainant.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties

        1 to 3?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

(iii). To what relief?

6.  Point No.(i):-  On perusal of the complaint and upon hearing the counsel for complainant and also on perusal of Exs.A1 to A3, it is found that the complainant has established that he has purchased the mobile phone on 06.02.2016 under Ex.A1 from opposite party No.1. Thereafter, the complainant observed that mobile phone is defective, it was unable to catch the signals and no outgoing calls from the mobile. Therefore, in the month of March 2016, the phone was given to service centre of opposite parties     2 and 3 for rectification. Again in the month of May 2016 the phone was given for rectification of same problems. The service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 returned the mobile on these two occasions stating that all the defects were rectified, but the problems were still existing. As such again on 11.06.2016, the complainant handed over the mobile to the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 for the same purpose, but not rectified the problems. Therefore, finally on 16.07.2016, the mobile phone, which was handed over to the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3, was retained with them and so far it was not returned despite number of approaches by the complainant. Therefore, on 16.08.2016 the complainant got issued notice under Ex.A2, which was served on the opposite parties. Ex.A3 is the acknowledgement. By virtue of Exs.A1 to A3 and the evidence affidavit of complainant, the complainant has established that the opposite party No.1, has sold the mobile phone to the complainant, and when there were problems, the opposite parties could not rectify those problems, and finally mobile phone itself was retained with the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3, and it was not returned so far either rectified or otherwise. So, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Having received a sum of Rs.8,400/- towards cost of the mobile under Ex.A1, when there were problems, it is the duty of the opposite parties to rectify those problems or to replace the mobile, but they did not do either of them, and the mobile phone was intentionally retained with the opposite parties service centre and caused much inconvenience as well as mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to return the cost of the mobile and also to pay compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.  Point No.(ii):-  In view of our discussion on point No.1, it is found that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone with IMEI/ESN No.911374001850442/ 911374001951448. It was also found that the said mobile was defective in its functioning, even could not trace the signals and the complainant could not make calls by using the said mobile, as no outgoing calls facility. Though the mobile phone was purchased on 06.02.2016, within a span of 5 months it was handed over to the service centre of opposite parties 2 and 3 for about 4 times, inspite of it they could not rectify the problems that were crept in the mobile. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the opposite parties 1 to 3. Accordingly this point is answered.           

8. Point No.(iii):- In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, and that he is entitled to refund of the cost of the mobile and also for compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for causing mental agony to the complainant, and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.8,400/- (Rupees eight thousand and four hundred only), towards the cost of the mobile phone as shown under Ex.A1; Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for the mental agony caused to the complainant, that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.8,400/- and also compensation of Rs.5,000/-, total Rs.13,400/- (8,400 + 5,000) shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.       

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 23^rd day of August, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: D. Chandu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Cash bill for the amount of Rs.8,400 for Big C Mobiles (P) Limited issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant in Original. Inv. Dt: 06.02.2016.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by complainant to the opposite party. Dt: 16.08.2016.
	Served Postal Acknowledgement Cards 2 in Number (Original) filed by the Complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-   

                                                                                                                      President

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

         

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.