Complaint filed on: 15-06-2017 Disposed on: 22-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.57/2017
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
P.K.Dhanraj,
S/o. S.Kallappa,
31 years, Site Engineer,
SDL Company,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.P.K.Girish)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
1. The Proprietor,
Manu Teleshoppe,
CSI Complex, BH Road,
Tumakuru
2. The Proprietor,
M/s.Impana Communication,
KNS Towers, BG Road,
Tumakuru-01
3. The Manager,
Micromax Informatics Ltd,
21/14A, Phase-2,
Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-28
(OP No.1 to 3-Exparte)
ORDER
SMT.GIRIJA, LAYD MEMBER
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 to 3 to return the cost of mobile handset of Rs.5,000=00 along with 12% interest per annum from 10-2-2017 to till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000=00 towards mental agony and financial loss and to pay legal cost of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The 1st OP is the proprietor of the mobile shop, 2nd OP is the service centre of the mobile phone and the 3rd OP is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone.
The complainant is working as site engineer in the SDL Construction (Pvt.) Company at Tumakuru. On 10-2-2017 complainant has purchased a Q4101 MICRO MAX mobile phone from the 1st OP shop by paying an amount of Rs.5,000=00.
The complainant further submitted that, after purchase of the above said mobile, within 10 to 15 days, the display of the mobile phone was not working. Hence, on 21-3-2017 the complainant has approached the 1st OP shop and told the above said problem. In turn, the 1st OP has directed the complainant to approach the 2nd OP service centre for repair. On the same day, the complainant went to the 2nd OP service centre and explained the above said problem and requested the 2nd OP to repair the same, but the 2nd OP did not rectify the problem and return the same.
The complainant further submitted that, again on 5-4-2017 the said mobile was not working properly, but the 2nd OP did not rectify the said problem and return the same. Again on 10-5-2017 the complainant approached the 2nd OP for exchange the said mobile phone, but the 2nd OP refused to exchange the mobile phone and gave evasive reply to the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On 15-6-2017 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs and the said notice was duly served on the OPs, but the OPs did not reply to the said notice. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of the notice, the OP Nos.1 to 3 did not appear before the forum and they were called out absent and they have been placed ex-parte and posted the case for filing the affidavit of the complainant.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant has produced documents.
5. We have heard the arguments of the complainant’s side and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant meticulously and posted the case for order.
6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1.Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2.What Order?
7. Our answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly Affirmative
Point No.2: As per final order below
REASONS
8. The complainant has firmly stated in his affidavit evidence that, on 10-2-2017 the complainant has purchased a Q4101 MICRO MAX mobile phone from the 1st OP shop by paying an amount of Rs.5,000=00. Further the complainant alleged that, within 10 to 15 days, the display of the mobile phone was not working. Hence the complainant has approached the 1st OP shop on 21-3-2017. The 1st OP has directed the complainant to approach the 2nd OP service centre to get the repair of the mobile phone. On the same day, the complainant approached the 2nd OP service centre and explained the above said problem and requested the 2nd OP to repair the same, but the 2nd OP did not rectify the problem and return the same. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
9. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced Cash Bill of Q4101 MICROMAX MOBILE for Rs.5,000=00 dated 10-2-2017 issued by the 1st OP. The complainant has also produced two job cards dated 21-3-2017 and 10-5-2017 issued by the 2nd OP service centre, wherein it is mentioned in the Repair Warranty column: Yes and Problem reported column: 4904 DISPLAY BLAKC LINES.
10. The OPs have not appeared in the instant case though the notice was duly served and thereby the OPs remained Ex-parte. In the sense, the OPs either admit the averments in the complaint in toto or they have nothing to say contrary to the complaint averments if the matter is viewed on this line, it proves that the OPs have agreed the same impliedly. Based on the above, we have no legal impediment to disbelieve the say of the complainant that he has established the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
11. In the result, the OPs are liable to refund the mobile cost of Rs.5,000=00 along with Rs.3,000=00 compensation and Rs.3,000=00 litigation costs to the complainant and if the OPs failed to refund the mobile cost, the OPs are liable to pay Rs.5,000=00 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint to till realization. Accordingly, the complaint is partly sustainable. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint of complainant is allowed in part.
The OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay mobile cost of Rs.5,000=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the OP Nos.1 to 3 shall pay the above said amount to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of this complaint to till the date of realization.
The OP Nos.1 to 3 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant.
The complainant is further directed to return Q4101 MICRO MAX mobile phone to the OPs, after receipt of the above said amount from the OPs.
This order is to be complied by the OP Nos.1 to 3 within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 22nd day of November 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
