View 9723 Cases Against Mobile
R.Vetrivel filed a consumer case on 02 Jan 2017 against The proprietor,Techco Park mobile show room in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/65/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jan 2017.
Complaint presented on: 06.04.2016
Order pronounced on: 02.01.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 02nd DAY OF JANUARY 2017
C.C.NO.65/2016
Mr.R.Vetrivel,
No.32/16, 1st 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 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Micromax mobile phone. The 2nd Opposite Party is the authorized service centre of the 1st Opposite Party. The 3rd Opposite Party is the dealer of the Micromax mobile phone. The Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile phone on 05.11.2015 at the 3rd 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party told that the mobile was ready. However the 2nd 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 2nd 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 3rd Opposite Party. The said mobile was manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party is the authorized service provider of the 1st Opposite Party.
7. After purchase of the mobile, within 20 days the mobile became dead. Hence the Complainant handed over the mobile to the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party also replied in Ex.A3. A remainder mail Ex.A4 was sent by a Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party. Ex.A6 is the legal notice also sent to the all the Opposite Parties. However no step was taken either by the 1st Opposite Party manufacturer or the 2nd Opposite Party/ service provider to rectify the mobile. According to the Complainant, the 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party/service provider and due to that only the 2nd Opposite Party had given a alternative mobile to the Complainant. In view of such circumstances, we hold that the mobile sold by the 3rd Opposite Party which was manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 02nd 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 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A3 dated 04.02.2016 Token issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A4 dated 12.02.2016 Complaint mail to 1st Opposite Party customer care
and replay mail from 1st Opposite Party dated
12.02.2016
Ex.A5 dated 27.02.2016 Reminder mail to 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A6 dated 02.03.2016 Complainant legal notice to all Opposite Parties
Ex.A7 dated NIL 1st Opposite Party postal Track consignment and
Opposite Parties 2 & 3 acknowledgement cards
Ex.A8 dated NIL Warranty card
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.