IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 31st day of December, 2016.
Filed on 23.09.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.304/2016
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Leeja Sunil 1. The Manager
Karthika Phone Palace
Neerettupuram.P.O Kodiyad Buildinigs. T.K Road
Thalavadi Thiruvalla
2. Micromax Informatic Ltd
Micromax House, 90 B,
Sector-18, Gargon-122015
3.. Sree Ayypas Mobiles
Chandrathil Buildings
189 A, Kottayam XVII
Appachy Kuzhy Road
Kizhakkethil Lane
Thirunakkara, Kottayam-686001
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 1st Opposite party for an amount of Rs.8,800/-. After 1 week from the date of purchase the phone became defective and entrusted to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has repaired the phone and returned to the complainant. The phone became again defective and entrusted to the 1st opposite party on 29-09-16 for getting it repaired. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party many times for getting the defects rectified but the phone was not been repaired and returned so far. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the price of the mobile phone together with compensation and cost.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party 1st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice against the additional 2nd opposite party was not returned notice against additional 3rd opposite party was served but not appeared before the Forum hence 3rd opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party has sold micromax mobile phone to the complainant. The said phone became faulty on 12-7-2016 and the opposite party repaired to defect the phone became again defective on 5/9/2016 and entrusted to the opposite party and the opposite party has entrusted the said phone to the additional 3rd opposite party service centre at Kottayam on 12/09/2016. The complainant collected the job sheet from the opposite party in order to receive the mobile phone from service center, Kottayam. It is the bounden duty of the Micromax is to replace the mobile phone hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Complainant produced 4 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A4
5. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the Opposite Party the Forum has raised the following issues:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in the service of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?
6.Issues 1and 2:-
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party.The product has 1 year warranty,During the warranty period the phone became defective and entrusted to the opposite parties for rectifying the defect.But the phone has not been repaired and returned so far.The complainant sustained much mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties hence filed this complaint.
7.Complainant produced 4 documents which were marked as Ext.A1- Ext.A4. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 11.4.2016from this it can be seenthat the complainant had purchased Micromax mobile phone for an amount of Rs. 8,800/- on 11/4/2016. Ext.A2 is the warrantycard Ext.A3 is the receipt which shows that the complainant had entrusted the phone to the 1st opposite party on 12/7/2016.Ext.A4 is the Job sheet.The documents produced would show that the phone became defective during the warranty period and entrusted the 1st opposite party for getting it repaired.According 1st opposite party the 1st opposite party has entrusted the phone to the additional 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service center of the additional 2nd opposite party.But 3rd opposite party has not repaired and returned the mobile phone so far.
7.According to the 1st opposite party they have duly entrusted the phone to the 3rd opposite party and which is evidenced from Ext.A4.According to the complainant she had purchased the phone honesty believing the assurance of opposite parties regarding warranty and after sale services.On considering the facts of the case it is clear that the opposite parties failed to provide after sale service to the complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service.Admittedly the phone is with the 3rd opposite party even after getting notice from the Forum the 3rd opposite party failed to appear before the Forum nor adduced any contra evidence.Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the relief.The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of the mobile phone Rs.8,800/- [Eight thousand and eight hundred Rupees only]to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount 1000/- [Thousand Rupees only] towards compensation and 1000[Thousand Rupees only] towards cost.
The order shall be compiled within 1 month failure were the amount Rs.8,800/-[Eight thousand and eight hundredRupees only] shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Original Bill dated 11-4-2016
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card
Ext.A3 - Receipt Dtd 12-07-2016
Ext.A4 - Job Sheet.
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil.
-//True copy//-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S/F
Typed by: Br/-
Compd.By:
