J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complainant files the complaint under section 12 of C.P Act with a prayer to exchange the defective mobile handset as alternatively to return the cost of the mobile with interest and litigation expenses.
The complainant's case is that on 05/09/2014 he purchased a mobile of Micro max model No. A/104 from OP No.1 at Rs. 7,000/- ( Rupees Seven Thousand ) only, but the hand set did not operate properly within the warranty period. As such he approached OP. No.1 for repair who directed the complainant to OP. No.2, authorised service center of Micro max. On 22.05.2015, the OP No.2 issued the job sheet with respect of the defective mobile of the complainant to repair the same. Further on 24.07.2015 also issued another job sheet in supsort of the same mobile for repairing the same. On 08.10.2015, when the complainant approached the OP. No.2 to get back his deposited mobile, but he was refused by OP. No.2. Therefore he intimated about this matter to OP. No.3, but he remained silent. Hence this complaint.
Te complainant files xerox copy of cash memo dated 05.09.2014 regarding purchase of Micro max A 104 mobile at Rs. 7,000/-, who also files xerox copy of job sheet dated 22.05.2015 where OP. No.2 has issued the same, stating to have received the handset and returned the battery. The complainant also filed job sheets dated 24.07.2015 for the same defect on his mobile. The OP. No.2 has received the same. The OP dis not appear in spite of the notice duly served on them. As such they have been set ex-partee on 29.12.2015.
The complainant supporting his complaint filed his evidence on affidavit on 27.01.2016 and relied on xerox copy of documents referred above.
On going through his complaint and evidence on affidavit, xerox copies of documents filed by him, which reveals that the complainant has purchased the mobile set from OP. No.1 and submitted the same for repairi before OP. No.2 on 25.05.2015, who issued the job sheet. Again he said mobile received on 24.07.015 for repair, but has not been returned the same to the complainant on demand made on 08.10.2015. The OP. No.3 though he was informed by the complainant regarding this matter but he did not respond.
As per the terms & conditions of the warranty mentioned in Sl. No.9, the O.P. No. 2 has to intimate the complainant regarding completion of the repair of the mobile and that is to be taken back by the complainant within 45 days from the date of written intimation.
Neither of the OP.s has given written information regarding repair of the complainant's mobile and to take back the same, but when the complainant suomoto approached the OP. No.2 on 08.10.2015 but was refused. The OP. No.3 though was intimated, but did not respond. The OP. No.1 also did not take any care to gte the mobile of the complainant repaired within the warranty period.
We allowed the complaint on ex-parte against the OPs and order that;
ORDER
The OP.s are jointly and severally liable to release a new Micro max A104 model mobile in place of the defective mobile in favour of the complainant with fresh warranty of 1 year within one month from the date of the order along with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-.(Rupees one thousand) only Failing which to payback the cost of the mobile of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) only with interest at the rate of 8% P.A from 24.07.2015 till its realisation along with cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand )only to the complainant.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 03rd May, 2016
