1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax handset Model A-115 bearing IMEI No.911302600616765 from OP.1 for Rs.9350/- Vide M. R. No.83 dt.29.10.2013 but during the month of February, 2014 the handset started giving defect like poor battery backup, Auto Switch off etc. and on approach to OP.2 he conducted a brief repair and stated that the set is defect free. It is submitted that again the said defects were detected after a couple of month and the OP.2 repaired the set in the same manner as that of before but both the times, the OP did not issue job sheet. Again the problems returned and the complainant handed over the set to OP.2 for repair on 14.8.14. The OP.2 received the set and advised the complainant to come after 15 days but after visiting 10 times the OP returned the handset on 20.12.14 with job sheet. The complainant found that some components of the handset are missing and on complaint, the OP.2 took back the set along with job sheet and advised the complainant to come after a couple of days. The complainant moved around the OP.2 for 6 months and in the month of May, 2015 the OP.2 returned the set on dead condition and the complainant found that the hand set has been reduced to a Cabinate only as the OP.2 has removed many parts from the handset. On complaint, the OP.2 replied that the handset will not work further. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.9350/- towards cost of the set and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. As per submission of the complainant, the OP.1 has closed his shop. Inspite of valid notice, the OP.2 neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.3 filed counter through his A/R denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that neither the complainant nor the OP.1 has ever intimated the fact of sale of the alleged handset to the complainant and the complainant is to strict proof of the allegations and averments made in the complaint petition. Denying all other allegations of the complainant and denying any knowledge about the alleged transaction, the OP.3 stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. We heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the OP.3 and also perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case the complainant stated that he purchased a Micromax handset mode A-115 bearing IMEI No.911302600616765 from OP.1 for Rs.9350/- and in support of this averment the complainant has filed Money Receipt No.83 dt.29.10.2013 issued by OP No.1. The complainant has stated in his petition that OP No.1 has closed his shop and he has filed this case here at Jeypore as the ASC (OP.2) of the Company is situated at Jeypore within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence in our view the complainant has rightly filed this case with proper territorial jurisdiction.
5. The case of the complainant is that during the month of Feb’14 the handset started giving defects like poor battery back up with other allied defects for which he has approached the OP No.2. After repair, the problems again returned within a couple of months which were rectified but again during the month of Aug.’14. The handset was handed over to OP.2 for repair but according to the complainant, in order to receive back his repaired set, he visited at least 10 times to the OP.2. Finally the OP.2 has returned the set on 20.12.2014 and has issued job sheet. The complainant found that no volume key was there in the handset and flash light was auto along with net work problem for which the handset along with job sheet were received back by the OP.2 and the complainant was advised to come after a couple of days to receive back the repaired set. The complainant has further stated that he moved around the OP for 6 months and during May,’15 the OP.2 returned the set in which some major parts were missing and on complaint, the OP.2 behaved eratically.
6. The OP.3 in his counter stated that he has no knowledge about the sale of alleged set to the complainant. The complainant has filed the money receipt issued by the OP.1 in support of sale of handset to the complainant. The hand set details are available on the retail invoice. The OP.2 being the ASC of OP.3 has repaired the set. In the above premises, no knowledge of OP.3 regarding sale of handset to the complainant is not acceptable.
7. Further the OP.2 on being served has neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. Hence the above allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged and as such the harassments suffered by the complainant at the hands of OP.2 proved to be true. Had the OP.2 participated in the proceeding, the matter would have been different.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, it can be easily concluded that the OP.2 being the ASC of OP.3 has removed major components from the handset and has kept the set in the guise of repair for 15 months and finally has returned the empty set (cabinate only) to the complainant. These activities of Ops amount to deficiency in service and leads to unfair trade practice for which the complainant sustained loss and suffered mental agony. As such the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.9350/- towards cost of the handset from OP No.3. As the OP.2 had played mischief with the complainant, in our opinion, he is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.9350/- from 29.10.2013 till the date of payment besides Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.9350/- in lieu of defective handset and the OP No.2 is to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.9350/- from 29.10.2013 besides Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
