Attention: users of Micromax Mobile/Smart phoen who are suffering due to poor warranty service of Micromax

Attention: users of Micromax Mobile/Smart phoen who are suffering due to poor warranty service of Micromax

Dear Readers I have brought out the facts of poor after sales services being offered by Micromax in my previous blog of 07/12/2012. I am finding many users of Micromax complaining on facebook. I am bringing out an award passed by Tripura State Commission to compensate customer who was made to suffer due to their poor warranty services. The service problems being brought out by the customer in the State Commission is similar to the sufferings of other customers of Micromax mobile.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 Appeal Case No.F.A-32/2011

Sri Anupam Paul, Son of Sri Alok Baran Paul,

Resident of T.G.Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala,

P.O-Head Post Office Agartala, P.S-West Agartala,

District-West Tripura.

                                                ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

Vs

1. Sri Bhaskar Saha, Proprietor,

Surina Sales Bureau, C/O Binayak Distributors,

Micromax Authorized Service Centre,

East Thana Road, Motor stand, Opp.-East P.S.,

Agartala, West Tripura.

2. Micromax informatics Ltd. represented by its Chief

Executive Officer, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-V,Gurgaon, Haryana, India.

                             ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

PRESENT :

                              

                                                 MR.B.K.SHARMA,IAS (Retd),

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

                  MRS.D.BAIDYA KHASNABISH

             MEMBER

               STATE COMMISSION.

         

 For the Appellant                   : Sri Anupam Paul appellant in person..

For the Respondent                           : None present.

                 Date of Hearing                               : 26-11-2011

                     Date of delivery of Judgment   :20-12-2011.

J U D G M E N T

Mr.B.K.Sharma,IAS(retd),Member

This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum, West Tripura on 29-07-2011 in case No.C.C.83 of 2010.

2.       The appellant had purchased a dual sim Micromax Q5 mobile phone from S. Deep Electronics at a price of Rs.3,900/- on 10-06-2010. The mobile set started malfunctioning w.e.f. 24-07-2010 and accordingly he took the mobile set to Surina Sales Bureau, Micromax Authorized Service Centre, Agartala who, after a thorough check up informed the appellant that there was a soft ware problem and for its rectification the cell phone required to be deposited with the Service centre. The appellant deposited the phone with them along with the warranty card and cash memo as asked for. The customer care centre asked the complainant to enquire about the status of the phone after a week. The appellant visited Surina Sales Bureau on 05-08-2010 but he was told that some more time was required and that the service centre would inform him when the phone was ready for delivery. Waiting for another 20 days when no information was received by the appellant again visited the service centre on 25-08-2010 when the service centre sought for 10 days more time as the soft ware  was not available with them. The appellant called the service centre again on 20-09-2010 when he was again told that the rectification would take some more time. The appellant visited the service centre again on 30-09-2010. The service centre could not give any satisfactory answer for the delay. When the appellant asked the service centre to provide him with a replacement set as he had been suffering professional losses due to non availability of the phone the service centre flatly refused. Hence the appellant was compelled to purchase a new Samsung mobile set at a cost of Rs.3750/-. The service centre failed to repair the micromax mobile set even after the lapse of more than two months and a half. Hence the appellant issued a notice to the respondent on 08-10-2010 but this notice also failed to achieve any favorable result and on 27-11-2010 the appellant filed a complaint in the District Forum, West Tripura alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claimed for compensation for the professional loss and harassment along with sufferings. He also prayed for the litigation cost and the price of the mobile set.

3.       The learned District Forum after hearing the case found the respondent guilty of deficiency in service and ordered that the O.P. should pay to the complainant Rs.3900/- as the price of the mobile set and a compensation of Rs.7,500/- for harassment along with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

4.       The appellant was not fully satisfied with the award and hence filed this appeal in the State Commission seeking enhancement of the award by an amount of Rs.99,250/- claiming to have suffered from the following losses.

1. Cost of micromax Q5 phone                                Rs.    3,900/-

2. Cost of new Samsung C3212 phone                      Rs.    3,700/-

3. Professional loss suffered in 2 ½ months               Rs.  30,000/-

4. Compensation for deficiency in service                   Rs.  50,000/-

5. Compensation for mental agony and hardship etc   Rs.  20,000/-

6. Cost of proceeding                                               Rs.    5,000/-

                                                                  Total    Rs.1,12,650/-

5.       As the appellant is the son of the Hon’ble President of the State Commission, a bench was constituted excluding the president for hearing and disposal of the case. Usual notices were served upon the respondents. The respondent No-1 appointed Sri P.Sarkar, learned advocate to represent but no response from the respondent No-2 was received. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned District Forum had passed an exparte order against the respondent on 29-07-2011 and claimed that no summons had been served upon the respondent N-1. Hence he prayed for remanding the appeal to the learned District Forum for a fresh trial. But the record received from the Learned District Forum clearly shows that the respondent No-1 refused to receive the summons while learned counsel Mr.Ranjit Dasgupta appeared to represent the respondent No-2. Thus the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent No-1 for remanding the appeal can not be accepted on the ground put forward by him. It is also seen from the record of the District Forum that the respondents remained absent during the hearing except a single date on which learned counsel Mr.R.Dasgupta appeared on behalf of the respondent No-2 and sought for adjournment for submission of Vokalatnama and written statement.

6.       The learned counsel for respondent No-1 in this appeal filed a petition on 29-10-2011 i.e. on the date fixed for arguments praying for transfer of the case to another bench or keeping the same in abeyance, as the appellant is the son of the president of the Commission and the existing Bench was in a hurry to dispose the case.

7.       The Hon’ble president, State Commission excused himself from hearing of this appeal right from the beginning and the two member bench constituted for the purpose were only trying to dispose of the appeal within the prescribed time frame. Hence the petition of the learned counsel for respondent No-1 for transfer of the appeal or keeping the same in abeyance is rejected.

8.       The complainant-appellant put forward his argument clearly but the learned counsel for the respondent No-1 remained absent even after a three weeks adjournment was granted in his favour for obtaining an order from and appropriate Forum for transfer of the case. During his two appearances also the learned counsel for the respondent No-1 did never discuss the merit or demerit of the appeal. He was only interested in getting the case transferred. He made no arguments in favour of his client.

9.       We have gone though the record very carefully. It is seen from the record that the appellant had purchased a dual sim micromax Q5 mobile phone from S.Deep Electronics on 10-06-2010. The mobile set started malfunctioning w.e.f. 24-07-2010. The authorized service centre in the name of rectifying the defects harassed the appellant for more that two months and the half. It is also seen that the appellant had to purchase a new Samsung mobile set at a cost of Rs.3,750/- on 10-06-2010. From the evidences produced by the complainant- appellant in the District Forums it has clearly been proved that the appellant suffered from a professional loss of at least Rs.30,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The respondents miserably failed to provide proper service to the complainant-appellant and harassed him for a long time. The learned counsel representing the respondent in the appeal or the O.Ps in the District Forum did not put forward any fact/reason to disprove the complaint/allegations made by the appellant-complainant.

10.     Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned District Forum. However, we are in the opinion of revising the award granted by the Learned District Forum. The professional loss has to be compensated by at least Rs.30,000/- and the compensation for harassment and mental agony is enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.20,000/. The litigation cost is also enhanced to Rs.5000/-.

11.     Therefore, it is ordered that the respondents shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant-appellant Rs.3,900/- as the cost of faulty mobile set, a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the professional loss suffered by the appellant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony inflicted upon the appellant by them along with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/- Thus, the O.Ps shall jointly and severally make payment of a total of Rs.58,900/- only to the appellant within 30 days from today along with an interest @ 6% there on from the date of filing the complaint in the District Forum i.e. w.e.f. 27-11-2010 failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of presentation of the complaint in the District Forum in addition to the consequences of noncompliance as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. 

12.     The appeal is thus disposed of.  

    

                                                     MEMBER                               MEMBER                                

                                              State Commission                State Commission                  

                                                      Tripura                                  Tripura