BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

C.C. No. 494/2015 Filed on 17.10.2015

ORDER DATED: 25.08.2016

Complainant:

Jerin Thomas, S/o Y.C. Thomas, residing at ‘Koppara’, House No. 3, Chandana Gardens, J.P. Lane, Kudappanakkunnu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 043.

                                       (By Adv. Rajaprathap. S.J)

Opposite parties:

1. The Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122 015.

2. The Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., S-405, L. Ground Floor, Grater Kailash II, New Delhi-110 048.

3. Rahul Sharma, Founder/Owner, The Micromax House & Yu Televentrues, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122 015.

This C.C having been heard on 15.07.2016, the Forum on 25.08.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Yu Eureka mobile phone through online shopping portal by name Amazon online shopping.  The said Amazon shopping group promoted the mobile set of opposite parties and set was purchased by the complainant.  It was advertised through the said online shopping groups that the original price of the mobile set is Rs. 12,000/- and the opposite parties are ready to sell the mobile set for a discount price of Rs. 8,999/-.  Accordingly the complainant purchased the mobile on 19.02.2015 bearing IMEI 911401501943466 was purchased by the complainant and the mobile was sent through courier service.  The complainant has used the mobile set as per the directions given by the opposite parties and on 1^st week of March there developed serious troubles in the mobile set with mic issues and proxy sensor and the entire system was malfunctioning.  The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties through telephone and e-mail.  The opposite parties immediately informed that the defect will be rectified within a short span of time.  The complainant informed the opposite parties that he is even ready to send the mobile set for service at New Delhi, but the opposite parties have informed that it is not necessary as the service person will directly contact the complainant as there is door step replace service is available.  The complainant believed the words and assurances of the opposite parties and purchased the mobile set.  But all the assurances and promises were in vain as the opposite parties have totally mislead the complainant and the act amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant again believed the words and assurances of the opposite parties and waited till 02.06.2015 and the complaint number registered by the complainant is ticket No. 44520.  The opposite parties have deliberately not replaced a new set to the complainant even though the mobile set purchased by the complainant has shown serious manufacturing defects within the warranty period.  The defects noted are not curable or cannot be rectified by replacing spare parts.  The complainant later came to know that the opposite parties have no service centre at Trivandrum or anywhere in Kerala.  Even the clause No. 3 and 4 mentioned in the warranty statement was deliberately violated by the opposite parties.  Moreover the opposite parties also misleaded the complainant regarding the service centre also.  The complainant also specifically informed the opposite parties about the defects in the mobile set through e-mail dated 01.04.2015, but there is no response from their part.  All their acts amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite parties to issue a brand new mobile set of the same specification, to refund amount of Rs. 8,999/- with 18% interest from 19.02.2015 onwards and with future interest at 6% from the date of award till realization. 

Notice was issued opposite parties 1 to 3.  Opposite parties did not turn up and hence set exparte. 

Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief and marked Exts. P1 to P6. 

Issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on opposite party’s side?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issues (i) & (ii):- In this case complainant purchased a mobile phone manufactured by 1^st opposite party through online shopping portal by name Amazon online shopping and Ext. P1 is the invoice. The complainant purchased the mobile on 19.02.2015 for a discount price of Rs. 8,999/-.  But the mobile became malfunctioning during first week of March, i.e; within the warranty period.  The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and their customer care centre through telephone and e-mail.  The complainant informed the opposite parties that he is even ready to send the mobile set for service at New Delhi, but the opposite parties informed that their service person will directly contact him.  He waited till 02.06.2015 registering his complaint.  But no action was taken from the opposite parties’ side and hence complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievances.  The opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and contest the case.  On the other hand, complainant filed all documents which are unchallenged.  The product is not working for the last 1 year and opposite parties did not take any steps to cure the defects.  On going through the evidence and statement it is clear that there is gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and are bound to compensate for that.  Hence opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund the purchase price of mobile i.e. Rs. 8,999/- along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.  After receiving the amount complainant shall hand over the mobile to the opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs. 8,999/- along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs. 8,999/- shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of default till payment along with compensation and cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 25^th day of August 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

jb

C.C. No. 494/2015

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of retail/tax invoice/cash memorandum

P2     - Copy of warranty statement

P3     - Copy of advocate notice dated 02.09.2015 & postal receipts

P4     - Copy of e-mail dated 01.04.2015

P5     - Copy of e-mail dated 06.07.2015

P6     - Copy of e-mail dated 25.05.2015

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb