IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM, KOLLAM

Dated this the   13^th    Day of  February 2019

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

                   Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, BSc,LL.B, Member

                                                        CC No.123/18

Vyshak.S.J                                        :         Complainant

Sreesailam

Punukkannoor

Perumpuzha P.O

Kundara, Kollam-691504

V/s

1. The Manager                           :         Opposite parties

         Micromax care

        Cosmo Cell, Karbala Junction

        Near Railway station

         Kollam.

2.  The Managing Director

          Micromax Informatics Ltd.

          Micromax House 90 B, Sector 18

           Gurgaon-122015

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M,President

          This  is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

The 1^st opposite is a recognised service centre at Kollam of the  Micromax Mobile Manufacturing unit.  The 2^nd opposite is the said manufacturing company.  On 31.12.15 the complainant purchased one mobile hand set manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The name of the mobile phone is  Micromax Canvas  Xpress ‘2’ E 313  model.  At the time of purchasing the said mobile hand set the 1^st opposite party has given guarantee for 1 year making the complainant to believe the company would repair defects if any caused during  the  warranty  period.  However when the   handset purchased by

2

the complainant was brought to the 1^st opposite party  service centre for repairing the  sound complaint.  After curing the defects the 1^st opposite party on 02.02.18 realised Rs.600/- towards service charges from the complainant and returned the handset.  However within a few days the same defect has again occurred and hence he rushed the 1^st opposite party on  27.02.18 and entrusted the same to him for repair work.  But the 1^st opposite party has neither repaired nor returned the hand set till date.  When he contacted the 1^st opposite party directly and over  phone he informed that spare parts has not arrived at.  However the repair work has not been carried  out till date.  In connection with the marriage of the complainant which was proposed to be held on  2^nd  May last year, he demanded the opposite party to return the handset which was entrusted to the 1^st opposite party for getting it repaired.  However the 1^st opposite party directed to sent a reply expressing satisfaction in response to the message sent by the 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstance the complainant prays to return Rs.600/- realised from him as the  repaired part has become defective within a few days.  As the 1^st opposite party service centre is not able to repair the  handset the opposite parties are liable to pay the price of the handset or to replace a defect free one.  The complainant further prays to award compensation to the  tune of Rs.10000/- and costs Rs.2000/-.

          In response to the  notice issued from this forum the 1^st opposite party entered appearance on 29.08.18 but subsequently he has neither turned up nor co-operated with the trial.  Though notice was served on the 2^nd opposite party it remained absent and hence the forum decided to proceed with the complaint in the absence of opposite party 1&2.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.P1 and P2 documents.  As the opposite parties failed to  appear and cross examine the complainant they were set exparte.

3

 Heard the complainant and perused the records.

The complainant filed proof affidavit  by re-iterating the averments in the complaint and got   marked  Ext.P1  and P2   documents.  The  unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 and P2 invoices issued by the 1^st opposite party No.1 would show that the complainant has entrusted his mobile phone handset to the 1^st opposite party on the 1^st occasion and got it repaired by paying Rs.600/- on 02.02.18.  The same handset again was seen entrusted to the 1^st opposite party on 27.02.18 for getting repaired the defect.  It is seen from the averments in the affidavit  that  the  1^st  opposite  party  has  neither repaired the defect nor returned the handset, though the complainant  was badly in need of the handset in connection with his marriage.  It is clear from the  averments  in the affidavit that while repairing and returning the hand set along with  Ext.P1 invoice on 02.02.18 the 1^st opposite party has assured 3 months guarantee for the work carried out.  But after 3 weeks on 27.02.18 again the hand set became defective and the defects noted was on the  part already repaired by spending Rs.600/- as per Ext.P1 invoice.  Therefore he rushed to the 1^st opposite party mobile centre and entrusted the handset to the 1^st opposite party who issued Ext.P2  job card bearing No.4288.  However  the  said handset was not repaired nor even returned the defective hand set to the complainant and hence hepurchased a new mobile phone.  However till the date of filing the complaint  the 1^st opposite party has not returned the defective handset received by him as per Ext.P2 job card. The above version of the complainant remains unchallenged which would establish  the case of the complainant.  In the circumstance the complainant is entitled to get the value of the handset, compensation and costs. 

However it is clear from the averments in the complaint and proof affidavit that the complainant has purchased the mobile hand set on 31.12.2015 and  he  used  the  said  handset  for 2  years.  Therefore  the  complainant is not

4

entitled to get the entire value of the handset refunded from the 1^st opposite party who retained the said 2 year old hand set.

          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5000/- towards cost of the handset entrusted to the 1^st opposite party for repair and Rs.2000/- as compensation  and Rs.1000/- as costs of the proceedings. 

In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms. The 1^st opposite party who is retaining the mobile handset of the complainant without repairing and returning the same is directed  to pay Rs.5000/- as price of the hand set (less depreciation), Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs within 30 days from the date of receipt  of copy of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover Rs.7000/- with interest @ 12% along with from  the date of  complaint till realisation  with costs Rs.1000/- from the 1^st opposite party and its assets.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the   13^th  day of  February  2019.         

          E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:

                      S.Sandhya Rani:

                     Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                             SENIORSUPERINTENDENT

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         Invoice dated 27.02.18.

Ext.P2                  :         Invoice dated  02.02.18

Witness examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:-Nil

  E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                      S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

                                                                                       Forwarded/by Order

               SENIORSUPERINTENDENT