Order No.  8  dt.  06/06/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Set being model no.A106 from o.p.no.4 on 18.10.2014 and IMEI No.911391303012943 at the consideration of Rs.7,200/- . O.p.no.4 issued the Tax invoice no.84023 against such purchase. After purchase the mobile set was working properly but the mobile set started malfunctioning on and from middle week of July, 2015 and accordingly complainant took the mobile set to o.p.3, the Service Center and o.p.3 charged the complainant Rs.450/- for the spare parts in spite of  the mobile set was under warrantee coverage. The complainant had to pay the sum on 16.07.2015 to o.p.3 so that the mobile set get repaired quickly. After the expiry of one week when the complainant approached the o.p.3 to get the delivery of the mobile set , the o.p.3 told the complainant to wait for one week further. Ultimately o.p.3 delivered the swap/exchanged mobile set being IMEI No.911345001576872 on 11.08.2015 and o.p.3 put seal and signature on the tax invoice against such delivery. But the exchanged mobile set also started malfunctioning on the same date i.e. on 11.08.2015 and the complainant took the said mobile set to o.p.3 on the next day i.e. 12.08.2015 and  the o.p.3 received mobile set and issued the job sheet being job sheet no.E030741-0815-18535169 and assured the complainant that they would deliver the mobile set after 14 days. After the lapse of 14 days i.e. 25.08.2015 complainant approached the o.p.3 for his mobile set, then the o.p.3 informed the complainant that the set was sent to the head office at Gurgaon and sought for another 7 days for delivery. Again after the expiry of 7 days i.e. 02.09.2015 complainant approached the o.p.3 and o.p.3 sought for another 3 days time. Thereafter the complainant contacted over phone and also physically approached the o.p.3. But o.p.3 continued to seek time for delivery of the mobile set. Finding no other alternative complainant sent a legal notice dated 14.12.2015 to the o.ps with demand to replace the mobile set or to refund the entire consideration of the mobile set with 18% interest. But in vain. Hence the application praying for refund of full  consideration of the mobile set with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Though the notices were served upon o.ps they did not appear before this Forum and therefore the case was heard ex-parte as against all the o.ps.

Decision with reasons :

          We have gone through the petition of complainant, documents and evidence in particular. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Set being model no.A106 from o.p.no.4 on 18.10.2014 and IMEI No.911391303012943 at the consideration of Rs.7,200/-. O.p.no.4 issued the Tax invoice no.84023. From the document  annexed as Annesure B we have observed that the o.p.3 charged Rs.450/- as spare parts charge and o.p.3 issued the Tax Invoice being no.2752 dated 16.07.2012. Though the mobile set was under the warranty coverage they charged for the spare parts arbitrarily. Complainant had to pay the amount to get the mobile set repaired quickly. As per assurance given by the o.p 3 complainant contacted with them after the lapse of one week but o.p.3 told the complainant to wait for one week further. Ultimately on 11.08.2015 i.e. after the expiry of 25 days o.p.3 delivered another mobile set being IMEI No.911345001576872. O.p 3 could not deliver the complainant’s own mobile set nor refund the amount which was received as spare parts charge from the complainant on 16.07.2015 for the earlier mobile set. On the very next day after receiving the exchanged mobile set,  the said set also started malfunctioning and complainant had to deposit the set on 12.08.2015 to o.p. no. 3. O.p.3 issued the job sheet against such receiving of the mobile set. In that job sheet it was written that ‘PROBLEM REPORTED : 4102 Power Does Not Switch Off 4107 Power Phone Restarts/Reboots’. Though the o.p.3 assured the complainant  that they would deliver the mobile set after 14 days they did not deliver  the same. Every time o.p.3 sought for further time for delivery. Complainant had to approach the o.p. no. 3 several times. Even after receiving the legal notice from the complainant neither of the o.ps responded the same. Due to unchallenged testimony we have nothing to disbelieve the documents and evidence adduced by the complainant. Receiving Rs.450/- in the warranty period and non-delivery of the mobile set till date amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps 1,2 and 3. O.p.4 is the seller of the said mobile set in question. So there is no obligation on their part.

          In view of above we find deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of o.p.1,2 and 3 and therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief.

          As a result the complaint petition succeed.

Hence, ordered.                           

that the case no.CC/58/2016 is allowed ex-parte as against o.ps 1 to 3 and dismissed as against o.p.4 ex-parte. O.ps 1,2,and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the consideration of the mobile set i.e. Rs.7,200/- along with compensation of Rs.2,500/- for causing harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of  this order i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

          Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.