Tripura

West Tripura

CC/23/2016

Smt Jayashree Sharma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sr. Vice President, Micromax House & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 23 of 2016

Jayashree Sharma,
D/O- Sri Prabir Kumar Sarma,
Indranagar, Opp. of Indranagar High School,
Agartala, Tripura (West).             .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

The Sr. Vice President,
     Micromax House,
     90B, Sector- 18, Gurgaon,
      Micromax Service Centre M/S Surajit Mobile Care,
     1st Floor, HGB Road, 
     Melarmath, Agartala, Tripura (West).    ............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        :Complainant in person.
                      
For the O.Ps                 : None appeared.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  08.06.2016

J U D G M E N T 
        Complainant is present. Heard argument.
        The case is to be decided exparte as the O.P. Micromax and the Proprietor  did not appear on receipt of notice. We have decided  to pass the exparte judgment today.
        From the complaint petition it is found that the complainant purchased the mobile on payment of Rs.10,000/- after 15 days the mobile was out or order. It was handed over to the Micromax service centre Surajit Mobile Care for repairing. After 15 days. But it was not repaired. Till date the mobile was not returned after repairing. 3 times requested the service centre but it was not responded. Petitioner could not contacted with the customer and every day she is facing many problems due to deficiency of service. Petitioner produced the  Job sheet of the Surajit Mobile Care, cash memo, and also examined herself. We have gone through the documents and the evidence given. It is found that the mobile phone had a warranty for one year. Within the warranty period just after 50 days of the purchase the mobile was placed for repairing to the authorized service of Micromax. From the Job sheet it is found tht it was out of warranty service and Rs.250/- charged. Date was purchase was on 12.02.15 date of job sheet is 11.01.16. One year time not lapsed from the date of purchase so within the warranty period company was duty bound to repair it or replace it. Micromax failed to do so. His authorized service centre also failed to provide proper service. Petitioner sent representation before Micromax company Surajit Mobile Care authorized service centre misbehaved with her. The company did not take any step for warranty of the mobile was not over. According to the petitioner mobile was disturbing after 6 months. From the evidence we are satisfied that there was deficiency of service by both Mixcromax company and its service centre at Agartala.

        On the from the above findings we decided the case in favour of the petitioner.  We direct the O.P. Micromax  to replace the smart phone by a new one or arrange repairing it properly within 3 days. We also direct micromax to pay compensate the petitioner on payment of Rs.10,000/-. We direct Surajit Mobile Care to replace  or repair it within 3 days and pay compensation Rs.5000/- Thus the petitioner will get compensation Rs.15,000/- for her harassment and also will get the mobile on replacement  by a new one or after repairing properly. Direct both the O.P. Micromax and Surajit Mobile Care to follow the direction within one month without fail.   

                      Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA