Karnataka

Bellary

CC/6/2015

S.VENUGOPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PROPRIETOR,RAM'S MOBILE SHOPEE AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

FILED ON:	13-01-2015
ORDER ON:	30-03-2015

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BELLARY

 

C.C.No.05 of 2015      

 

 

Present :  

 

  (1)   Shri. R.Bandachar,

                                          B.Com, LL.B.  (Spl) ……    President

                                                                                            (in-charge)

   

  (2) Smt Mary Havila,

                                          B.A.                       ……        Member

 

DATED THIS THE  30^th DAY OF MARCH 2015     

 

COMPLAINANT   //In person//       //VS//	Ankit Agrawal, S/o Sh.Vishnu Dutt Gupta, JSW Steel Ltd., Vidyanagar Township, Torangallu, Bellary, Karnataka-583 275.
RESPONDENTS   //Exparte//	1)Chandrika Electronics,    Tunga Complex, 2nd floor,    Opp: SRR Theater, Martin road,    Kalamma Street, Bellary-583 101.   2.Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18,    Gurgaon-122015.

         

// O R D E R //

 

Per Smt Mary Havila

 

        The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents U/Sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   

 

 

 

                2.  The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that he purchased a Micromax Canvas Turbo A250 mobile through flipkart online banking on 13-03-2014.  Thereafter, the complainant found a defect within warranty period as one of the SIM is not getting detected in the mobile purchased by him.  Therefore, he met the authorised service center i.e. respondent no.2 on 05-09-2014 who issued job card No.N0300670914-11965794. On 02-10-2014 the respondent no.1 handed over the said mobile handset who interchanged with old used handset to the new one which was intimated to the Executive of the Micromax Customer Care Center.  The said Executive intimated to deposit the interchanged handset and in turn provide a new set to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the interchanged mobile handset before the respondent no.1 under job sheet No.N030067-1114-13252986. But till date the respondents have not provided mobile handset.  The respondents have made the complainant to run from pillar to post by not providing the mobile handset which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  

                 3.  On service of notice when the respondents failed to appear they are placed exparte. 

           4.  The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as P.W.1 and got marked 03 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.   

5.  The written argument is filed by the complainant.

     6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

 

1.	Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the respondents towards him, as alleged in the complaint?
2.	Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3.	What order?

      

                   

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  The findings on the above points are as under.  

Point No.1:	In the affirmative.
Point No.2:	Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.3:	As per final order.

 

// R  E A S O N S //

Point No.1 : -

                  8.  There is no challenge to the case of the complainant from the respondents as they are placed exparte. 

           9.   However, the complainant to prove his case produced the copy of the order booking for Micromax Canvas Turbo A250 (white) mobile handset for Rs.13,999/- through flipkar online banking.     To prove that the complainant had complained the defect in the mobile handset purchased by him, produced the copies of job sheets issued by the respondent no.1 which are marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3.   On the perusal of the records placed before us the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant is within the warranty period.   Therefore, the respondents are bound to provide proper service to the complainant.  As the respondents neither rectified the defects in the mobile purchased by the complainant nor replaced with new one , the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him.  Non-refund of the said amount by the respondents to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Accordingly, we answer this point in the affirmative.  

 

Point No.2 :- 

            10. As the complainant has proved that he had paid Rs.13,999/- to the respondents  towards cost of the mobile handset, he is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him, from the respondents, along with interest, compensation towards deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order.    Accordingly, we answer this point partly in the affirmative.  

 

Point No.3 : -

    11.   In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following; 

 

//ORDER//

 

            The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.   

            The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.13,999/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13-01-2015  till its realization, from the respondents.  

            The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, from the respondents.  

            The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondents.  

The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.

   Inform the parties accordingly.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this 30th day of March 2015)

 

 

 

 

	(R.BANDACHAR) PRESIDENT
	(MARY HAVILA) MEMBER