Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/111/2015

M/s.Dharmesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sky Way Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.06.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 20^th   DAY OF JULY 2016

 

C.C.NO.111/2015

 

 

Dharmesh Kumar,

Rect & Training Dept,

Headquarters,

Coast Guard Region (East),

Napier Bridge,

Chennai - 600 009

 

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	The Manager, Sky Way Technologies, Shop No.2, Balfour Apartment, 30/24, Balfour Road, (Near Kelys) Chennai- 600 010.
	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  03.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for opposite party                       : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had purchased a Micromax X321 Mobile on 27.06.2014 for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- in Daman and the same is in under guarantee period for one year. The mobile became defective and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for repairing the mobile various time. He refused to repair the product stating to the Complainant to visit the other CSC, Chennai for repair and guarantee service was not provided and gave various excuses for not repairing the product on 25.04.2015. The Complainant wrote a Complaint to the Opposite Party for not repairing the mobile while it was within the warranty period. The Opposite Party replied that since the product was purchased abroad there is not warranty available to him. Narrating this, the Complainant sent a Complaint on 08.06.2015 calling upon the Opposite Party and the Micromax head office to rectify the defect and the same was acknowledged but there was no response, as such the Complainant had come forward with this Complaint seeking relief as stated above.

          2. Even though the notice was served to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party failed to appear and was called absent and set ex-parte.

          3. The Complainant had come with his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the Complainant.

          4. The Complainant had also come forward with written argument and oral argument of the Complainant was heard.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

6. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant had purchased a mobile from the Opposite Party on 27.06.2014 for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- under Ex.A1 purchase receipt. Since the mobile became defective, the Complainant handed over to the Opposite Party to resolve the defect in the mobile within the warranty period under Ex.A6. The import and market note is marked as Ex.A7. The Complainant wrote  Ex.A2 letter to the manufacturer about the defective mobile.   The  Opposite Party replied under Ex.A3  that the mobile was purchased abroad and it does not cover warranty. But from the documents  Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 the mobile is within the warranty as per the terms & conditions of the warranty conditions. There was no response from the Opposite Party. Due to the defective product sold by the  Opposite Party, the Complainant could not enjoy the right of using his mobile inspite of paying the consideration amount of Rs.2,000/-. Hence the Complainant had written a Complaint under Ex.A4 dated 08.06.2015 calling upon the Opposite Party  to provide relief within one week.  The Opposite Party who had received the notice as per Ex.A5 had neither complied the demand of the Complainant nor sent any reply to him.

          7. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party to the evidence of the Complainant, as the Opposite Party had remained ex-parte. Hence this Forum, on the basis of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and on the basis of the Ex.A1  to A7 come to the conclusion that the Complainant had established the Opposite Party has not provided proper service to the Complainant and hence we hold that the Opposite Party committed    deficiency in Service  and accordingly  we answered the point as against the Opposite Party.

 8. POINT NO: 2

          As we have decided in point no.1, that the Complainant had established the Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant. As it is seen from Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 the Complainant had written Complaint to the Opposite Party on 25.4.2015 and 08.06.2015. Even after receiving the Complaint they have not come forward to rectify the defect as such the Complainant was deprived of the enjoyment of the mobile due to the negligence and Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence definitely it would have caused severe mental agony to the Complainant. Hence towards the negligence and Deficiency in Service and  mental agony caused to the Complainant, this Forum consider that it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the product and Rs.3000/- as compensation for the Complainant is reasonable. Apart from that the Complainant is also entitled for another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand  only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of              Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 20^th   day of July  2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.06.2014             Purchasing Receipt of Mobile Ex.A2 dated 25.04.2015             Complaint to M/s. Micromax to resolve the                                                      Complaint  Ex.A3 dated 13.05.2015             Reply received by representatives of M/s                                                     Micromax Ex.A4 dated 08.06.2015             Complaint to Opposite Party Ex.A5 dated 13.06.2015             Acknowledgment from Opposite Party Ex.A6 dated NIL                        Terms and condition of warranty Ex.A7 dated NIL                         Import and market note

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT