Date of Complaint : 26.08.2015
Date of Order :11.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT : THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER – I
DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.No. 339 / 2015
THIS MONDAY 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. Swaminathan,
B 15 Doshi Gardens,
174/321 Arcot Road,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026. .. Complainant.
- Vs-
1. The Managing Director, Micromax Informatics Limited, 910B Sector 18, Gurgaon 122 015. 2. The Manager, M/s. Mobi Vision, Old No.81/New No.149, Kodambakkam High Road, Opp. Hotel Pratap Plaza, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Opposite parties. | | .. Opposite party. |
| | |
For the complainant : Party in person.
For the opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
1. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
2. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte on 18.11.2015
3. Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant in person.
4. The complainant contended that he bought one Micro Max Mobile phone Model A 310 (B) on 1.10.2014 from M/s Cell World at Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.15,890/- which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The Handset and charges are warranted by the manufacturer against any defects in materials and workman ship for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase. As the display was not functioning he handed over the said mobile to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre on 2.7.2015. Though it was covered under warranty the service centre charged Rs.4,500/- for rectification. Though the display error was rectified he was unable to charge the phone and again he approached them on 3.7.2015. The 2nd opposite party returned the mobile confirming that the fault was recitifed. But he notice that the problem was not rectified and the mobile phone could not charged and as such he faced lot of inconvenience. Hence he sent email dated 6.7.2015 and requested the manufacturer to rectify the defects. They also confirmed through email the matter would be resolved within 48 hours. But they failed to do so. Hence again he sent the letter to them on 20.7.2015 which was received by them but no action was taken. Further the complainant gave his another mobile model A 116 (W) for which they charged Rs.3,500/- on 13.10.2014 for rectifying the display deficiencies. But the problem still persisted and the mobile is not in usable condition and they refused to under take the job of repair. Hence the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to remove the defects or replace the defective mobile phone and ceased and desist from carrying out unfair trade practice, refund the excess charges paid for deficiency service of a sum of Rs.4,500/- with interest and also Rs.25,000/- for towards compensation for mental agony for the cost of the complaint.
5. The complainant purchased a Micro Max Mobile phone A310 on 1.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.15,890/- is evidenced through Ex.A1. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile phone display was not functioning and he handed over the mobile to the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre on 2.7.2015 when the mobile was under warranty for which the 2nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.4,500/- and also issued receipt for the same i..e Ex.A2. Though the display error was rectified the mobile could not be charged and he was again forced to approached the 2nd opposite party to rectify the defect on 3.7.2015 even then the defect was not rectified but simply returned as rectified and the problem still persisted.
6. With regard to the grievance of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.4,500/- as rectification charges within the warranty period it is pertinent to note that as per Ex.A4, i.e. the letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party it reveals that the complainant himself stated that the 2nd opposite party charged Rs.4,500/- for rectification due to the damage caused of water seepage through the socket meant for charging. As such it shows that because of the above said reason the 2nd opposite party had charged Rs.4,500/- and it also admitted by the complainant that the display defect was rectified. Moreover the complainant had not paid the said amount with protest. As such he is not entitled for refund of the said amount of Rs.4,500/-. Whereas the grievance of the complainant that the mobile could not be charged even after repair given on 3.7.2015 is acceptable. Further from the email transaction i.e. Ex.A6 between the complainant and the 1st opposite party it reveals that the opposite party assured to respond to his grievance within 48 hours. Whereas the 1st opposite party had not taken any effort to comply his grievance is acceptable.
7. On the other hand the 2nd opposite party is duty bound to render proper service by sending the mobile to the 1st opposite party to rectify the defects in full-fledged manner but he failed to do so. As such it shows that the 2nd opposite party also had committed deficiency in service. Hence the contention of the complainant that till date the defects in the mobile was not rectified by the opposite parties and as such he could not use the mobile and was put to much hardship is acceptable.
8. Whereas further allegations raised by the complainant in the complaint against the 2nd opposite party that he had given another mobile for repair and they charged Rs.3,500/- to rectify the display deficiency and problem still continued and they refused to under take the job are all not sustainable since the said allegations is not related to the complaint mentioned mobile and as such the Ex.A3 is also not related to this case.
9. Moreover the opposite parties also failed to appear before this forum in order to defend their case even after receipt of notice and they remained exparte.
10. Hence as discussed above the complainant’s claim of refund of the service charges of a sum of Rs.4,500/- is not sustainable and he is not entitled for the refund of the said amount.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled only for compensation due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and also towards mental agony caused to the complainant. Since the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant, he is entitled only for just and reasonable compensation.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards litigation charges to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount (Rs.10,000/-) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.
Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s Side documents :
Ex.A1- 1.10.2014 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A2- 2.7.2015 - Copy of Money receipt.
Ex.A3- 30.10.2014 - Copy of money receipt.
Ex.A4- 6.7.2015 - Copy of letter sent to Micromax informatics Ltd. Through
The Professional couriers.
Ex.A5- 15.8.2015 - Copy of status report.
Ex.A6- 7.7.2015 - Copy of email received from Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
Opposite party’s side documents: -
.. Nil .. (exparte)
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
