Order-24.

Date-22/03/2016.

Complainant Sanjay Kumar Pandey by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Set being No. A092M10CROMAX from M/s. Anglo Swiss Telecom (14-15) op no.1 on payment of Rs. 4,650/- including all costs on 30.12.2014.  But from the date of purchase the said mobile set faced technical defect of battery over heating and low battery and the said mobile set could not be operated smoothly.

          On 06.01.2015 complainant went to M/s. Techniquo Services, West Bengal op no.2 the Service Centre of Micromax and deposited the said mobile set for proper servicing and op no.1 received the same for repairing/servicing under their job sheet dated 06.01.2015 and thereafter on 24.02.2015 the mobile set was delivered to the complainant by op no.2 after repairing.  But again the same problem of battery over heating remained as it was and the said mobile set could not be operated at all.

          On 28.02.2015 again the said mobile set was deposited to op no.2 for further repairing of the same on the same job sheet mentioned above dated 06.01.2015 with a note .repeat. but till this date the said mobile set has not been returned to complainant after proper repairing.

          Thereafter complainant wrote separate letter to both op nos. 1 & 2 which were sent under Speed Post and the said letters were sent under speed post which were received by op nos.1 & 2 on 10.03.2015 and 13.03.2015.  But ops did not send any reply to those letters and did not render any redress and mobile set has not been handed over for which the present complaint is filed for the negligent and deficient manner of service and also for complainant’s sufferings, complainant prayed for refund of the entire price amount and compensation.

          On the other hand op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the said Micromax mobile set from op no.1.  But on receipt of the complaint of the complainant, the handset was thoroughly examined by the Service Centre’s engineers on 06.01.2015 and during inspection it was found that complainant sought repair due to low battery backup and over heating issues which were duly resolved and complainant was provided with a said handset.

          Complainant further on 28.02.2015 approached authorized Service Centre of the answering op requesting to replace the said handset and or returned the purchase price of the said hand set.  But the answering authority op has no authority to replace and or retuned the purchase price of the said hand set save and except repairing and thereafter op replaced the battery of the said mobile set and again provided to the complainant, but complainant refused to accept it, despite this, complainant has filed the present complaint with ill intention filed this false and vexatious.

          Moreover there was no manufacturing defect in respect of the said mobile hand set, only the problem was battery and battery was replaced.  But complainant did not receive it.  So, the entire allegation of the complainant is vexatious and only for the purpose of getting the entire amount that is the price amount of the same and with some false and vexatious allegation this complaint is filed for grabbing more money.

          Truth is that on 30.12.2014 complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Set being No. A092M10CROMAX from M/s. Anglo Swiss Telecom (14-15) op no.1, but the said mobile set does not bear any report and there is no manufacturing problem and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

          But other ops did not turn up even after sending of notice of complaint, no written version is filed by op nos. 1 & 3.  So, this case is heard finally exparte form against op nos. 1 & 3.

Decision with reasons

          On careful consideration of the complaint and written version of Service Centre op no.2 and further considering the material documents we have gathered that the disputed mobile set was deposited by complainant when battery problem was found and at the first time it was deposited to op no.2 on 06.01.2015 for repairing regarding battery over heating cause or low battery backup and no doubt in respect of the said set, there was warranty and admitted position is that the said mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 30.12.2014.

          It is also proved that on receipt of the said mobile set by the op no.2, job sheet was issued on 06.01.2015 and after thorough inspection and investigation, they found that there was only battery problem and again on 24.02.2015 same problem was found by the complainant when complainant deposited the same to the op on 28.02.2015 and fact remains that op no.2 replaced the battery and asked the complainant to receive it.  But complainant forthwith refused to accept the said mobile set but claimed for replacement by a new one or refund of the entire purchased amount.

          But fact remains that as per warranty clause, complainant is not entitled to get any replacement if no manufacturing defect is found and in the present case there is/was no manufacturing defect in respect of the said set.  But only there was a problem of battery.  So, under any circumstances it cannot be said that there was manufacturing defect in respect of the said mobile set.  When that is the fact, then there is no question of replacement of the said mobile set or refund of purchased amount.

          Another peculiar fact is that a new battery was placed by removing the defective battery.  Admittedly on the date of appearance op no.2 replaced a new battery asking complainant to receive but complainant did not receive it when battery set was replaced by a new one with handset.  But fact remains that op no.2 as Service Centre of op no.3 discharged their duties and responsibilities as per warranty clause by replacement of a new battery then we are convinced that complainant’s grievance had already been redressed by the Service Centre or manufacturer.  When that is the fact, then for what reason complainant did not receive it back when there was no other defect.

          In this context it is to be mentioned by this Forum that this Forum has acquired such experience after handling so many cases that it has become a practice of the customer to get a new one or to refund the entire price money and that is their claim in most of the cases.

          But each and every purchaser of any electronic goods or computer or any other item like mobile set etc. must have to get the redressal if there is warranty in respect of the item.  But in most of the cases the customers are not willing to get redressal as per warranty clausebut they are willing to get back refund of purchased money or a new or a fresh set, but that is not the position of law.  Already Hon’ble Supreme Court in their judgements has specifically observed that when there is warranty clause, if manufacturing defect is found in respect of any mobile set, the consumer shall not get refund of purchase money or replacement.  But only he is entitled to get the benefit of repairing.  But even after repeated repairing if it would be found that the said set is not cured from any further defect, in that case, only replacement can be ordered.

          Considering the present fact, circumstancesand materials and also considering the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in so many judgements and further considering the fact that the present handset is free from any manufacturing defect anddefect was in respect of the battery, but that has been replaced already on 28.02.2015but complainant refused to accept it and for that reason we are convinced to hold that there is no deficiency, negligence on the part of the op nos. 2 & 3.  But they redressed the grievance of the complainant perfectly as per warranty clause by replacing the new battery in place of defect battery.  When that is the fact, then complainant is not entitled to get any order of compensation, cost, etc.  But only op no.2 shall have to hand over the mobile set along with new battery showing that it is being run properly and there is no defect.

          Accordingly, this complaint is going to be allowed.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against all the ops without any cost with a specific direction to the complainant to receive the said mobile set from the op no.2 Service Centre on proper receipt and op no.2 shall handover it with a certificate that there is no manufacturing defect and new battery has been fixed and it is ordered that it must be done by the op no.2 immediately within one month from the date of this order.  After receipt of the order, op no.2 shall send a letter to the complainant to receive it.

          Even after that if complainant does not receive it, then there is no liability on the part of the op nos.1, 2& 3.