DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  25^th day of January  2016

Present   :   Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

                :   Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                                             Date of filing: 08/07/2015

(C.C.No.98/2015)

Krishnaprakash,

S/o.Late Krishnankutty Poduval,

Kunnanattu Poduvattil,

Amayoor Post, Pattambi – 679 303                                           -              Complainant

(By Party in Person) 

Vs

1.The Proprietor,

    Seemas Mobiles,

    Mobile Phone Sales,

    Opp.Police Quarters,

    Mele Pattambi

2. The Manager,

    M/s.Micromax Service Centre,

    1^st Floor, Metro Complex,

    Opp.Ayurveda Hospital,

    HPO Road, Palakkad – 678 001

(Party in Person)

3.The Managing Director,

     M/s.Micromax Service Centre,

    Shop No.1, Ground Floor,

    Devi Palace Opp. Raj Cenema

    Delhi Road, Gurgaon,

    Haryana – 122 001                                                                         -             Opposite parties

As per Order in IA 364/15 name of 3^rd opposite party is deleted from the  party array.

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

The complainant had purchased Micromax  Tablet (canvas) P470 IME11:911388200398029 from the 1^st opposite party on 30/1/2015 for Rs.7500/- and they were issued a warranty card  for the same. On 21/5/2015 the tablet was not working properly and in order to rectify the defect of tablet  it was given to the 1^st opposite party . 

The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that it will be returned immediately after repairing. But so far they have not returned the tablet. When the complainant enquired about the tablet, the 1^st opposite party has given a vague reply stating that it was sent to  Mircromax Service Centre for repair. Then the complainant sent  e-mail to the 2^nd opposite party who is the Micromax Service Centre at Palakkad and the 3^rd opposite party the main Head Office of the Service Centre. The complaint was lodged before 3^rd opposite party by e-mail on 20/6/2015 and again on 30/6/2015. They replied that the hand set will be repaired soon  and apologized for the delay.

The Complainant submitted that 1^st opposite party has not returned the tablet to the complainant so far. Due to the acts of opposite parties he was put too much hardship, mental agony and injury and financial loss. Complainant submitted that the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7500/- towards the cost of the Micromax Tablet,  Rs.1,000/-  towards mental strain and agony sustained by him and Rs.1000/- as cost .

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to all opposite parties.  1^st opposite party received the notice; he remained absent hence set exparte. 2^nd opposite party was appeared in person. 2^nd Opposite party filed version contending the following

According to 2^nd opposite party, they have no direct contact with the complainant. 2^nd opposite party admitted that the tab P470 model with IMEI 911388200398029  was received for service vide job sheet No.S030209-0615-17207324 dated 12-6-2015 from Mr.Abubakker. Then they send it for repair to Micromax Central Service Center at New Delhi. 2^nd opposite party contended that on 14-7-2015 they had received upgraded model P 480 tablet from Head Office and the same was informed to Mr.Abubakker and handed over the tablet to him on the same day. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. 2^nd opposite party has no liability to pay compensation to the complainant. 

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A4  are marked from the side of the complainant. Ext. B1 to B4 are marked from the side of 2^nd opposite party. At the time of awaiting return of notice against 3^rd opposite party, complainant filed IA 364/15 to delete the name of 3^rd opposite party from the  party array.  2^nd opposite party submitted no objection. Hence application allowed.

The following issues are considered

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

2.If so, what is the relief?

Issues 1 and 2

2^nd opposite party admitted that the alleged tablet was taken for repair from Mr Abubacker on 12-6-2015. Complainant submitted that he had given tab for repair to 1^st opposite party. Since the 1st opposite party set as exparte, we came to the conclusion that Mr.Abubacker on behalf of 1^st opposite party handed over the tablet of complainant to 2^nd opposite party for repair. Ext.B1 revealed that Mr.Abubacker received back New P.480 with IMEI9111423951708223/9111423951708231. As per Ext. B1 that Mr.Abubacker received back the upgraded new tab for and on behalf of 1^st opposite party. No other contrary evidence to the evidence adduced by the 2^nd opposite party. In the above circumstances we came to the conclusion that now upgraded new tablet is within the custody of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party did not return the new tablet to the complainant till this date. This act of 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 1^st opposite party has the liability to compensate the complainant for mental agony caused due to their deficiency in service. Since the 2^nd opposite party has given the tab to the Abubacker, we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

      In the result complaint is partly allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to

1.  Handover the upgraded new tablet  to the complainant 
2. Pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant
3.  And pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

If the 1^st opposite party did not hand over the tab within one month from the date of this order, complainant has the right to get an additional amount of Rs.7500/- from the 1^st opposite party.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th day of  January  2016.

         Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  - Copy of the complaint dated 20/6/2015 sent by e.mail to the 2^nd opposite  party and

                reply .

Ext.A2  - E mail dated 30/6/2015 sent by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party and reply   

Ext.A3 -  Warranty card dated 30/1/15 issued by 1^st opposite party

Ext.A4  -  Email sent by  2^nd opposite party  4/9/15. 

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.B1 –  Copy of job sheet duly signed by  Abubacker after receiving  the replaced tab P480

Ext.B 2 – Copy of Warranty Terms and conditions by Micromax

Ext.B3  - Copy of the mail from Micromax head office to check the status of job no. given to

                Abubacker

Ext.B4 – Copy of mail send from

Cost 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.