Complaint filed on: 17-05-2016                                                      Disposed on: 04-11-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No. 71/2016

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

                                        Sri.P.H.Lohithaswa,

                                                Advocate,

                                                Aged about 43 years,

                                                S/o. Hanumantha Setty,

                                                R/at No.548, TUDA Layout,

                                                Sira Gate, Tumakuru

 (Advocate by Sri.D.A.Rajesha Gupta)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The officer In-charge,

Micro Max Informatics Ltd,

21/14-A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-28

2. The Officer-In-Charge,

Impana Communication,

Micro Max Service Centre,

KNS Tower, BH Road,

Tumakuru

3. Proprietor,

Mobile World,

Deviprasad Square,

BH Road, Tumakuru

(OP No.1 to 3 - Exparte)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint was filed against the OPs No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs No.1 to 3 to replace the defective mobile and also to pay back the damages of Rs.50,000=00 towards mental agony and loss occurred along with litigation cost and grant such other relief as prayed in the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant has purchased the Micro Max P-480 Mobile Hand set with IMEI No.911423954099984 and 911432954099992 on 12-11 -2015 from the 3^rd OP shop for Rs.6,700=00 and the said mobile is having one year warrantee.

          The complainant further submitted that, after purchasing the said mobile handset, there was a software problem and no battery backup, which leads to automatic switch off and some other problems were traced in the mobile handset. Hence, the complainant has approached the 2^nd OP i.e. Service Center of Micro Max Mobile Company on 29-10-2016. The 2^nd OP had taken the mobile handset for repair. The 2^nd OP has entered the problems and also the mobile warrantee period.

          The complainant further submitted that, the 2^nd OP has promised that, the handset will be returned within a week. The complainant has approached the 2^nd OP after a week, the 2^nd OP has repaired the said mobile handset, but after repair, the same problem has repeated. Again complainant has given the mobile handset to the 2^nd OP for repair for more than 3 to 4 times, but the problem was not solved. 

          The complainant further submitted that, the mobile handset is within the warranty period. The 2^nd OP is the authorized service center of 1^st OP, and the 1^st OP is the manufacturer and sold the defective and unconditional mobile handset to the complainant. This attitude of the OPs is clearly shows deficiency of service towards complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice to the Ops and it was served on the Ops, but the Ops have not replaced the defective handset of the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3. After service of notice, the Ops no.1 to 3 did not appear before the forum and they were called out absent and they have been placed ex-parte.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence to support his case and also produced some documents which were marked at Ex.P1 to P7. We have heard the arguments of complainant side and pursed the documents and then posted the case for orders.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?

2. What Order?      

6. Our answers on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:           In the Affirmative

Point No.2:           As per final order below

REASONS

          The complainant has firmly stated oath in his affidavit evidence that, on 12-11-2015 the complainant has purchased the Micro Max P-480 Mobile Handset with IMEI No.911423954099984 and 911432954099992 from the 3^rd OP shop at Tumakuru for Rs.6,700=00. The above said mobile is having one year warranty. After purchasing the said mobile, there was a software problem and no battery backup, which leads to automatic switch off and some other problems were traced in the mobile handset. On 29-10-2016 the complainant approached the 2^nd OP i.e. authorized service center of Micro Max Mobile Company in Tumakuru. The 2^nd OP had taken the mobile handset for repair, after a week, the service center has repaired the said mobile handset and returned the same to the complainant. After repair of the mobile handset, the same problem was repeated, again complainant had given the mobile handset to the 2^nd OP’s service centre for repair more than 3 to 4 times, but the said problem was not solved.  Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the Ops and it was served on the Ops, but the Ops have not replaced the defective mobile handset of the complainant.

6. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained uncontroverted. The OPs have neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant. So under the circumstance, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

7. Let us have a cursory glance at the documents of complainant. Ex-P1 is copy of tax invoice dated 12-11-2015 issued in the name of complainant for having purchased MICROMAX-P480 from 3^rd OP shop at Tumakuru for Rs.6,700=00. The complainant has produced the copy of warranty card, in the warranty card, it is stated that, the warranty will be applicable to for 12 months from the date of purchase for device. Ex-P2 is the copy of Service Job sheet dated 29-1-2016 of Impana Communication, Micromax Service Center, Tumakuru i.e. 2^nd OP wherein the complainant has given complaint to the service center stating that Software-dead, MIC-3^rd time repeated, speaker/ringer-problem and other-no battery backup.

8. The said oral and documentary evidence of complainant that, after purchase of the Micro Max P-480 mobile hand set from the Ops, the said mobile handset is not working properly and the problem of the complainant in relation to the mobile handset is well within the warranty period stands corroborated by the copies of tax invoice, Service job sheet and warranty card filed by the complainant.  

9. The act of Ops no.1 to 3 in not making repair of the MICROMAS-P480 mobile handset well within the warranty period amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has proved with believable material evidence that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not making repair of the mobile handset well within the warranty period and as such the complainant is entitled to replace the defective mobile handset from the Ops along with reasonable damages/compensation and accordingly the Ops no.1 to 3 are directed to replace the defective mobile handset to the complainant along with damages/compensation of Rs.3,000=00. The OPs no.1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation and accordingly the complaint is partly allowed. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed in part.       
2. The OP no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective mobile handset i.e. Micro Max      P-480 to the complainant, failing which, the OP No.1 to 3 are directed to refund Rs.6,700=00 to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.
3. The OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant.
4. The OP no.1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
5. This order is to be complied by the OP no.1 to 3 within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

6. Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 4^th day of November 2016).

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                       PRESIDENT