This complaint is made by Mrs. Maheswari Sharma against the OP No. 1, The Manager, Micromax Service Centre, situated at 155/1, G-Block, P.S. New Alipore, and OP No. 2, Micromax Informatics Ltd., having its Office at Netaji Nagar, E block, P.O. Ganganagar, Madhyamgram, Kolkata – 700 132, praying for a direction upon the OPs to either replace the defective battery of the mobile set with a new one or refund the cost of the mobile set amounting to Rs. 5,150/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase, i.e., January 12, 2015 and also for a direction upon the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.

Facts in brief, are that, the Complainant purchased a mobile phone from R.S.B. Communication, 87, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala after making a payment of Rs. 5,150/-.  Since the date of purchase up to April, 2015, the mobile set was working properly.  But, thereafter, it started getting switched off while talking.  Complainant visited the nearest service centre, who is the OP No. 1 and after waiting for few hours at the service centre, the mobile set was returned to the Complainant.  OP no. 1 assured the Complainant that the defect in the battery has been detected and it has been removed.  Allegedly, similar problem resurfaced on and from August 20, 2015 and so, the Complainant requested the OP No. 1 to replace the battery for which the OP no. 1 asked the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 680/-.  However, the Complainant did not agree to bear this cost as because the OP No. 1 on the earlier occasion assured him that next time the battery would be replaced with a new one if the same problem persisted.  Thereafter, the Complainant issued notice to the OP no. 1 for replacing the mobile set as it was within the warranty period.  As the OP No. 1 did not oblige the Complainant, this case was filed.

OP No. 1 filed written version and denied all the allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint.  Further, the OP No. 1 has stated that he was not obliged to replace either the battery or the handset because the warranty period for the battery already got over by the time the Complainant presented the same to it.  It is also submitted by the OP No. 1 that the Complainant issued a legal notice on 31-08-2015 demanding replacement of battery after the warranty period elapsed.  So, the OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint case.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed Affidavit-on-Evidence wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.  Against this, the OP no. 1 filed Questionnaire wherein the OP No. 1 has put certain questions in order to establish that after expiry of the warranty period, the demand for replacement of the battery was made by the Complainant. To this, the Complainant has submitted Affidavit-in reply.  Subsequently, the OP No. 1 filed Evidence-on-affidavit, whereby he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

Main point for determination is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the petition of complaint.

First prayer of the Complainant is to direct the OPs to replace the defective battery of the handset with a new one or refund of the cost of the said handset amounting to Rs. 5,150/- with 18% interest.

The dispute in the complaint petition is relating to the replacement of the battery.  Complainant has filed Xerox copy of receipt showing that he paid Rs. 5,150/-, where no terms and conditions are mentioned.  By a judicious reasoning, it appears that the replacement of battery free of cost cannot be allowed after about 8 months as the length of warranty for battery normally does not stretch for so long.  In fact, there is no cogent document on record to show that even after 8 months, the battery was under the warranty or the OP No. 1 gave any such replacement assurance to the Complainant as claimed.  No document is filed from the side of the Complainant to show that the warranty of battery includes warranty of handset. Further, the prayer made by the Complainant itself reflects that the only defect encountered by the Complainant was with the battery of the handset.  In our view, in lieu of replacement of battery, the price of handset cannot be claimed.  It is because, no defect as per complaint was detected in the handset.

Furthermore, the payment of compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be awarded because the prayer of the complaint itself does not stand upon any logical ground. 

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint has been filed by the Complainant just to make a ground for filing this case.  Since the Complainant failed to establish that the battery was covered under the warranty period, this Forum is constrained to pass any order in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/52/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest.  No order as to costs.