BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.28/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 3^rd November 2017

Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                   

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

    3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                

                                            B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.    This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the micromax mobile handset and also to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service with costs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Micromax mobile phone, opposite party No.2 is the authorised service centre of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is authorised dealer.  He has placed an order online on 24.12.2015 for phone worth Rs.5,999/- with opposite party No.3.  Opposite party No.3 has delivered the mobile phone on 30.12.2015.  The complainant has opened the box on 02.01.2016 and he has operated the phone, the mobile screen auto rotation is not working.  Immediately, he has intimated the said fact through tweeter to the opposite party No.1 customer care and also opposite party No.3.  Opposite party No.1 has given authorised service centres list and give the instructions how to resolve the problem to the complainant.  The complainant has followed the instructions given by the opposite party No.1, then the said problem was resolved.  Again on 08.01.2016 mobile was under problem.  Then he has approached opposite party No.2 service centre for repair.  Opposite party No.3 has attended the repair and return the mobile and there was software problem in the mobile.  Again complainant has approached opposite party No.2 on 25.02.2016 and handed over the mobile handset and opposite party No.2 requested 21 days to attend the repairs of the mobile even after 21 days, opposite party No.2 has further  require time 20 days.  Then he has approached customer care of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 has assured to send the new mobile handset through opposite party No.2 – service centre.  Then complainant approached opposite party No.2 and saw the new mobile handset.  But, the said handset was also damaged and not in working condition.  Opposite party No.1 instead of giving new handset issued used mobile handset to the complainant.  Thereby, the complainant has rejected the same.  Thereafter, opposite party No.2 has assured to get new mobile.  But, there was no response from the opposite party No.2. Thereby, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     Notice served on all the opposite parties, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 absent, placed exparte.  Opposite party No.1 alone appeared and not filed the version.  Then this matter is set down complainant’s evidence.  During evidence, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on the documents.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
4.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not attending the repair of the mobile handset, thereby complainant is entitled for the relief?
2. To What order?

5.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

6.    Point No.1:- Complainant placed documents to establish that he has purchased mobile handset worth Rs.5,999/- but one of the document issued by opposite party No.3 discloses that there is discount of Rs.470/- out of the said amount.  Thereby, total amount paid by the complainant is Rs.5,999/- - Rs.470/- = Rs.5,529/- and there are correspondence by the complainant to opposite party No.1 relating to the problems in the handset.  Another important document produced by the complainant is the job sheet issued by opposite party No.2.  It is dated 25.02.2016.  Thereafter, opposite party No.2 is neither replied the complaint nor attended the repair.  The E-mail correspondence made by the complainant discloses that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not attended the repairs of the mobile or provided any reliefs to the complainant.  In the circumstances, and in the absence of any specific defence by the opposite parties, this Forum finds that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 being the manufacturer and service center failed to provide service to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.  Thereby, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is liable to answer the claim in question.  There is no liability on the part of opposite party No.3 – dealer.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
7.   Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are liable to refund the value of product i.e. Rs.5,999/- - 470/- = Rs.5,529/- and also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Hence, the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party  Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5,529/- being the value of product with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 09.01.2017 till payment.
3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant in 45 days from the date of this order. Failing which, the said sum of Rs.12,000/- shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 09.01.2017 till payment.
4.  In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.3.
6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 3^rd November 2017)