Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/65/2016

R.Vetrivel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The proprietor,Techco Park mobile show room - Opp.Party(s)

S.Prabakar

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.04.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  02.01.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 02^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.65/2016

 

 

Mr.R.Vetrivel,

No.32/16, 1^st Floor,

Errabalu Street,

Parrys, Chennai – 01.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager, Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Pin code- 122 015.   2.The Manager, Micromax Care, Cell tech, Shop No.4,   150, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 08.   3.The proprietor, M/s.Techno Park Mobile show room, 223, NSC Bose Road, (YMCA) Building), Chennai – 01.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   09.05.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.S.Prabakar Advocate

Counsel for opposite party                       : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Micromax mobile phone. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized service centre of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 3^rd Opposite Party is the dealer of the Micromax mobile phone. The Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile phone on 05.11.2015 at the 3^rd Opposite Party/ Seller on payment of consideration of Rs.3,100/- . Ever since from the date of purchase, within 20 days the mobile caused problem as dead.  The Complainant visited the 2^nd Opposite Party in the first week of December 2015 and gave the mobile for service. The 2nd Opposite Party asked him to contact after three months. The Complainant went first week of February on 02.02.2016, the 2^nd Opposite Party told that the mobile was ready. However the 2^nd Opposite Party gave only an alternative mobile model A104 Micromax  on 03.02.2016 instead of his mobile model S302. On 04.02.2016 the 2^nd Opposite Party informed that they cannot rectify the problem. Then the Complainant requested to give latest model mobile instead of old one. The Complainant sent mail on 12.02.2016 to the customer care of the Micromax. The warranty for the mobile is one year. The alternative mobile given to him was also not charging due to software problem. As per the conditions of the warranty, if the mobile become defective an alternative new mobile has to be provided to the customer. Therefore, the mobile sold to the Complainant is a defective one and the same cannot be rectified and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service. The Complainant also issued legal notice dated 02.03.2016 and thereafter the Complainant filed the Complaint either to replace the defective mobile or refund the cost of the mobile with compensation for mental agony for  unfair trade practice and cost of litigation.

          2. Though the Opposite Party received notice, they did not appear on 14.06.2016 and hence the Opposite Parties called absent and set Ex-parte.

          3. The Complainant had filed his proof affidavit and document Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 was marked on the side of the Complainant.

          4. The Complainant had also come forward with written argument and oral argument of the Complainant was heard.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased Micromax S303 mobile on payment of consideration of Rs.3,100/- under Ex.A1 cash bill from the 3^rd Opposite Party. The said mobile was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the authorized service provider of the 1^st Opposite Party.

          7. After purchase of the mobile, within 20 days the mobile became dead. Hence the Complainant handed over the mobile to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued Ex.A2 job sheet. As per the job sheet the mobile has warranty and the defect in the mobile is having hanging problems.   Ex.A3 is the proof for alternative mobile model A104 given to the Complainant. The Complainant also sent e-mail to the 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party also replied in Ex.A3. A remainder mail Ex.A4 was sent by a Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party. Ex.A6 is the legal notice also sent to the all the Opposite Parties. However no step was taken either by the 1^st Opposite Party manufacturer or the 2^nd Opposite Party/ service provider to rectify the mobile. According to the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party informed him that the mobile cannot be rectified. For such version of the Complainant there is no contra evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Therefore we hold         that the mobile has the manufacturing defect and the same could not be rectified by the 2^nd Opposite Party/service provider and due to that only the 2^nd Opposite Party had given a alternative mobile to the Complainant. In view of such circumstances, we hold that the mobile sold by the 3^rd Opposite Party  which was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party could not rectify the problem proves that the mobile is having manufacturing defect and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have  committed Deficiency in Service. As for as 3rd Opposite Party concerned, he is only a seller and therefore, it is held that the 3^rd Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant prayed either to replace with new product or refund the cost of the product. Already the mobile purchased by the Complainant is having inherent defect cannot be rectified. Therefore we are inclined to order that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 should refund the cost of the product of Rs.3,100/- to the Complainant. The Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.3,100/- (Rupees three thousand and one hundred  only) cost of the product  to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. In respect of other reliefs the Complaint against the 3^rd  Opposite Party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 02^nd day of January 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 05.11.2015                   Mobile purchased bill

Ex.A2 dated 03.02.2016                   Job sheet issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 04.02.2016                   Token issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 12.02.2016                   Complaint mail to 1^st Opposite Party customer care

                                                    and replay mail from 1^st Opposite Party dated

                                                    12.02.2016

 

Ex.A5 dated 27.02.2016                   Reminder mail to 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 02.03.2016                   Complainant legal notice to all Opposite Parties

 

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     1^st Opposite Party postal Track consignment and

                                                    Opposite Parties 2 & 3 acknowledgement cards

 

Ex.A8 dated  NIL                    Warranty card

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT