Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/112/2015

M/s.Thangaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Poorvika Mobiles Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

P.Ravichandran

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  29.06.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2016

 

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

 

THURSDAY THE  28^th   DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

C.C.NO.112/2015

 

 

Thangaraj,

S/o. Subramani,

No.144/1, T.H.Road,

M.R.Nagar, Chennai – 118.

                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager, Poorvika Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., Branch Office at No.4, T.H.Road, M.R.Nagar, Chennai – 118.   2.The Managing Director, No.30, Arcot Road, (Opp. Meenaksh, College) Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24.   3. The Manager, S.P.Cell Tech, Shop No.8, Lision Complex, First Floor, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 8.   4. The Branch Manager, The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd., (Poorvika Mobiles Cellular Insurance Policy) No. 251, T.H.Road, Chennai – 21.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 03.8.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. P. Ravichandran

Counsel for 1 & 2 Opposite Parties         : S. Muthu selvam  (Ex–parte)

 

Counsel for 3 & 4 Opposite Parties    : Ex – parte

 

O R D E R

 

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

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

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased a Micromax  A250 Mobile Phone, with IMEI No. 911334750417827/9820  by paying a sum Rs.17,500/- by cash through the invoice of 1^st Opposite Party with number 115370 dated 22.01.2014. Apart from the mobile set a scratch guard for Rs.400/- was also paid and a sum of Rs.300/- was also paid for the insurance for the above phone. The warranty period for the above said mobile was one year from the date of purchase.  Within 10 months from the date of purchase the mobile became defective, the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party and he requested to approach the 3^rd Opposite Party for service. The 3^rd Opposite Party issued job sheet dated 20.01.2015. Either the 3^rd Opposite Party repaired the product or he returned the mobile to the Complainant. The Complainant also issued legal notice dated 06.05.2015 and the Opposite Parties failed to reply for the same. The 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer cum seller. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer and 3^rd Opposite Party is the service provider. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.300/- for insurance and insured by the 4^th Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties failed repair the mobile and deliver to the Complainant and thereby committed Deficiency in Service.

          2. Though the Opposite Parties 1^st & 2^nd appeared through counsel and did not filed written version in spite of sufficient opportunity given to them and hence they were set ex-parte. The 3^rd & 4^th         Opposite Party though received notice failed to appear before this Forum and hence they were set ex-parte.

          3. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and written arguments. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. The oral arguments of the Complainant heard.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

5. POINT:1

          The Complainant purchased Micromax Mobile from the 1^st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.17,500/- under Ex.A1 invoice dated 22.01.2014 and the said mobile was insured with the 4^th Opposite Party on payment of premium amount of Rs.300/- to him and the insurance coverage was given for a period of one year under Ex.A2 and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the service provider.

          6. According to the Complainant the mobile become defective within 10 months from the date of purchase and hence he approached the 3^rd Opposite Party service provider through the 1^st Opposite Party and 3^rd Opposite Party after receiving the mobile issued Ex.A3 job sheet. In the said job sheet the problem mentioned as “POWER DOES NOT SWITCH ON DISPLAY BACK LIGHT ISSUE”. However in the job sheet, it is mentioned the mobile is attended within warranty period.

          7. Ex.A3 job sheet proves that the 3^rd Opposite Party received the mobile from the Complainant.  The mobile was neither repaired nor delivered to him by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Since the mobile was not repaired and delivered to the Complainant he issued a legal notice Ex.A4 dated 06.05.2015 to all the Opposite Parties and though the Opposite Parties received the same they did not reply. In the said notice it is specifically mentioned that the 3^rd Opposite Party service provider has not serviced the product and returned to him till date. This notice further proves that the 3^rd Opposite Party has not returned the mobile to the Complainant after service and therefore the 3^rd Opposite Party failure to service the mobile and also without delivering and holding the mobile with him establishes that the 3^rd Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. However there is no proof available that the Opposite Parties 1^st & 2^nd and 4^th have committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT:2

          Since the 3^rd Opposite Party was  a service provider committed with holding the Complainant mobile with  him, the Complainant is entitled for the  cost of the product as per Ex.A1 invoice a sum of Rs.17,500/- from him. However due to the Deficiency in Service the Complainant suffered with mental agony is acceptable. Therefore for mental agony, it would be appropriate to order the 3^rd Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complainant is entitled for the  reliefs as indicated above and the Complaint in respect of the 1^st ,2^nd & 4^th Opposite Parties are liable to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 3^rd Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 17,500/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the product and also to pay a sum of   Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5000/- (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. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st, 2^nd  & 4^th Opposite Parties is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th    day of April  2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.01.2014                   Invoice No.15370 and 16106 issued by the 1^st

                                                Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Insurance particular issued by the 3^rd Opposite

                                                Party

Ex.A3 dated 20.01.2015                   Service Job Sheet dated 20.01.2015 issued by the

                                                3^rd Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 05.05.2015                   Legal Notice issued to the Opposite Parties by the

                                                Complainant

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Postal receipts and Acknowledgement Cards 

                                                signed by the Opposite Parties 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT