District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - President-in-Charge
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 15/2016
Sadhan Karmakar
Prop.: M/s. Sadhana Gini House
New Market,
PO & PS.: Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Proprietor / Manager,
M/s. Labanya Infotech, (Micromax Service Centre),
Upendra Bhawan (Opp. of Purbasha Club), Public Bus Stand,
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur - 733101
2. The Manager, (Head Office / Corporate Office),
Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon,
Haryana – 122022, India
3. The Proprietor of
M/s. Sadhana Mobile, 3½ No. More (Near Balurghat Lodge),
PO & PS: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur - 733101 …….…Opposite Party / Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Debasish Karmakar
For OP No. 1 ……………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick
For OP No. 3 ……………… - Ex-parte
Date of Filing : 08.06.2016
Date of Disposal : 26.12.2016
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 26.12.2016
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased a Micromax mobile handset from the shop, name and style as M/s. Sadhana Mobile, 3½ No. More, under PO & PS Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur, on 21.12.2015 Model No.AQ5001, vide cash Memo No. 1532. After some days the complainant observed that the said Micromax handset was not working properly due to manufacturing defect and on 15.4.2016 he noticed that the power did not switch on the said mobile. On 19.4.2016, the complainant visited Sadhana Mobile shop i.e. OP No. 3 and he advised to the complainant that the said handset was under warranty period and to go to the ‘Micromax Service Centre’ M/s. Labanya Infotech Upendra Bhawan, Public Bus-stand, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur i.e. the OP No. 1 to solve the problem of the said handset. On 19.4.2016 the OP No. 1 received the said Micromax handset and gave a customer registration slip vide job sheet barcode Sl No. E030842-0416-22968400 dt. 19.4.2016. OP No. 1 said to the complainant that the problems would be solved within 5-7 days. After 7 days the complainant visited to receive the mobile handset from OP No. 1, but he did not return the said mobile or not interested to solve the defect of the mobile. OP No. 1 said to the complainant, ‘we will communicate you’ after repairing the handset, but they did not communicate him. The complainant repeatedly asked the OP No. 1 about the whereabouts of his mobile and at last the OP No. 1 gave only the track reports verbally, but did not handover the mobile and stated that ‘you may go to the court for return back the said mobile’.
The complainant visited the service centre of OP No. 1 and made several calls to the OP Nos. 2 & 3, but they did not pay any heed to.
The complainant has incurred a loss amounting to Rs.6,500/- due to the purchase of defective mobile set and also suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to negligent act and deficiency in
Contd…P/3
service on their part in terms of sec. 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986 and, therefore, the complainant lodged this complaint before this Forum to get proper redressal and prayed for return / refund the purchase amount of Rs.6,500/- or replace a defect free new mobile handset and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and also litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- from the OPs.
The complainant submitted the following documents viz. – photocopy of cash memo No. 1532 dt. 21.12.2015, copy of job sheet dt. 19.4.2016 and the copy of the warranty card.
The instant case was filed against 3 (three) OPs but it was admitted against OP No. 1 & 3 only. During proceeding of this case the OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing a written version and ex-parte order was passed against OP No. 3.
It is the contention of the OP No. 1 as stated in his written version that the complainant had gone to the office of the OP No. 1, the authorized service center of the mobile company with his defective mobile handset for service and he handed over the handset to the OP No. 1, but the complainant had not gone to the office of the OP No. 1 afterwards to receive his mobile as the problem in the handset had been removed by the service provider. It is stated that the complainant, thereafter, did not contact with the OPNo.1 for a long time and his intention was to get a new mobile set of another model in place of his said purchased hand set. It is further contended that the guideline of the company at the time of contract of purchase that the complainant should accept the replaced set within 45 days after repairing/replacement was done, failing which the company had no responsibility of the same .The complainant after long period of time visited to the O.P NO.1 and as such the OP.No.1 with sympathetic view stated all the facts of the policy and guidelines of the company to the complainant and stated that the O.P party had nothing to do in that regard but the O.P No.1 could delivery of the
Contd…P/4
mobile handset which the complainant had deposited at the office of the OP No. 1. It is stated that the OP No. 1 was ready for delivery and the complainant could take the same as and when he liked and the OP No.1 even ready to deposit the handset in the Forum. The complainant with ill motive leveled false allegations and made some false statements and filed this case. The Complainant within the 45 days from 16.06.2015 never visited the office of the O.P No.1 and on repeated calls from the end of the O.P No.1 the complainant never turned up and only stated that he was not willing to use the said handset but he wanted a new one of another model and the O.P No.1 was not in a position to meet up the said wish of the complainant as the same was against the business policy and guidelines of the company.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer of O.P No.1?
- Whether the mobile handset of the complainant was given to the OP No.1 for repair within the warranty period?
- Whether the O.P No.1 returned the mobile handset of the Complainant to him after repair?
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The complainant purchased the Micromax mobile handset amounting to Rs.6,500/- as stated in details above from the OP No.3 on 21.12.2015. It is contention of the complainant that after some months of the said purchase the above noted mobile handset was not working properly and on 15.4.2016 the power switch was not functioning. On 19.4.2016, the complainant visited the shop of OP No. 3 who in turn advised to the complainant that the mobile handset was within the
Contd…P/5
warranty period and so he should to go the OP No. 1, the service provider of the mobile company in order to solve the problem and accordingly the complainant on 19.4.2016 went to the office of the OP No. 1 to get proper post sale service of his mobile handset and the OP No. 1 duly received the mobile handset of the complainant and issued customer registration slip vide job sheet barcode Sl No.E030842-0416-22968400 dt. 19.4.2016 and promised to repair the mobile handset within a short period of time. OP No. 1 also instructed the complainant to receive the mobile handset after 5-7 days.
The complainant visited the shop of OP No. 1 to get back his mobile handset on several dates as per the time given by the OP No. 1 but OP No. 1 failed to return the mobile handset after proper repair. On being asked by the complainant to OP No. 1 about the whereabouts of the mobile handset. OP No. 1 told verbally the track report and told that “you may go to the court for return back the said mobile”. Consequent to that the complainant was compelled to institute this case against these OPs.
Considering the complaint petition, documents filed by the complainant the written version of the OP No. 1 as well as submission made by the parties, it is unearthed that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset on 21.12.2015 and it went malfunctioning since after 4-5 months of purchase and he thereafter approached the OP No. 3 who in turn sent him to the OP No. 1 for post sale service, as the OP No. 1 was the authorized service provider of the micromax company and the complainant as per advice of the OP No. 3 gave his mobile handset for repair to OP No. 1 on 19.4.2016, but despite repeated visit he failed to receive back his mobile handset after repairing from OP No. 1.
It is seen from the copy of warranty card that the warranty will be applicable for 12 months from the date of original purchase for mobile handset and 6 months for accessories.
Contd…P/6
From the job sheet annexed by the complainant it is seen that the complainant handed over his mobile handset for repair to the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 duly received the same.
The OP No. 1 also admitted the job sheet but stated in the written version that the complainant did not visit the office of the OP No. 1 within the stipulated time as framed by the company in its business policy and guideline and hence they denied taking any liability.
It is admitted position that the mobile got defective within the warranty period and the OP No. 1 duly received the defective mobile handset for repair from the complainant but the OP No. 1 did not return the same to the complainant after necessary repair. The contention of the OP No. 1 as stated in the written version that the complainant did not visit his office or gone there after a long period is not believable. It is also not believable as stated in the written version that the complainant did not go to the office of the OP No. 1 for taking his mobile back, even after the problems were removed. However, on this plea, the OP No. 1 could not avoid his liability. The mobile company is a reputed company and its authorized service centre should be more consumers friendly to uphold the goodwill of the company. Mere saying that the complainant did not visit the shop for collection of his mobile, is not suffice to absolve his liability from rendering proper service. The OP No. 1 being the authorized service centre of the micromax mobile company, should render service to its customers properly and here we find that though the OP No. 1 received the mobile hand set for repair, but did not return the same after repair and failed to provide proper service and thus the OP No. 1 is deficient in providing service to the complainant.
Though, the complainant purchased the mobile handset from OP No. 3 and after defect detected it was given to the OP No. 1 for necessary repairing because OP No. 1 is authorized service centre of the company, therefore, there is nexus between the company and
Contd…P/7
retailer i.e. OP No. 3 as well as the OP No. 1 being the service provider of the company, hence the complainant is a consumer of the OP No. 1.
Due to the deficiency in service of the OP No. 1 the complainant has to file this case for proper redress. Hence, we hold that the OP No. 1 is liable to pay compensation.
The Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 during hearing submitted that the OP No. 1 is ready to handover the mobile handset to the complainant and necessary repair has already been done.
We found no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3, so no order has been passed against him.
Considering all above we hold the view that the complainant is a consumer in terms of the sec.2 (1)(d) of the CP Act, and the mobile handset of the complainant was given to the OP No. 1 for repair within the warranty period and the OP No. 1 did not return the mobile handset to the complainant after necessary repair and therefore the OP No. 1 is negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get relief from this Forum and the case of the complainant is, therefore, succeeded.
All the points are, therefore, discussed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.15/2016 is allowed on contest, but in part.
The OP No. 1 is directed to return the said mobile handset to the complainant after repairing within 15 days from the date of order.
OP No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost, in total Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant by issuing account payee cheque in his name within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get @ 8% interest p.a. on Rs.3,000/- till the realization.
Contd…P/8
Direction is also given to the OP to deposit the said cheque to this Forum within the abovementioned period.
The complainant is at liberty to execute the same as per the provisions of the CP Act in default of the above order.
Let the copy of this order handed over to the parties concerned.
Dictated & corrected
…………….…….
(S. Saha)
Member
I concur,
…………..……
(S. Ganguli)
President-in-Charge
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of despatch ……………………
- Date of despatch ……………………
-x-
