Micromax Informatics — warrant arrest against chairman, micromax tv company

Date of filing : 04.01.2018
Date of order : 03.07.2018

District consumer disputes redressal forum, kanchipuram district
(Sub collector’s office compound, g. S. T. Road, melamaiyur village, chengalpattu)
Sec.27 (2) of consumer protection act, 1986 – (1st class judicial magistrate under code of
Criminal procedure 1973 – powers)

In the presence of : mr. J. Justin david, m. A., m. L. - chairman
Mrs. K. Pramila, m.com., - member
Mr. D. Babu varadharajan, b. Sc., b. L. - member

Consumer complaint no.02/2018 – 03.07.2018 (Tuesday)

V. Anandamoorthy
S/o. S. Vivekanandamoorthy
2/310, fifth street
Kandasamy nagar, palavakkam
Chennai-600 041 - petitioner/ complainant
Vs

1) the chairman
M/s. Micro max television production company
Micromax house
90-a, sector-18, gurgon-122 015

2) the manager
Micromax service centre
X-axis services
10, second cross street
Mudichur road, tambaram
Chennai – 600 045. - respondents /
Opposite parties

Complaint filing date : 04.01.2018

For petitioner : party in person

For opposite party : ex-parte

This petition was taken for final hearing on 26.06.2018 by the party in person for the petitioner, and ex-parte for the opposite party as they did not come to the consumer forum for hearing, so the consumer forum decided to take it the party as ex-parte. So far the consumer forum reviewed the records and statements from trial of the case, the consumer forum has given its order as follows ;

:- 2 :-

Order
Delivered by mr. J. Justin david, chairman

The petitioner purchased a television from the opposite party, had frequent repairs within the one year warranty period on the purchased tv set. So, the petitioner claimed a new television set or the equivalent amount of rs.33, 990/- the price of tv and compensation for mental agony, financial burden, un-wanted running from pillar to post and waste of time, due to this the petitioner was not able to purchase a new tv set, for this an amount of rs.15, 000/- and rs.3, 000/- for court expenses, (Altogether 51, 990/-) the petitioner seeking a claim of compensation under consumer protection act 1986, section-12, this petition has been filed.

The abstract of the petition submitted by the petitioner

The petitioner after his retirement from the service, he purchased a micromax tv 50b600hd, 127 cm (50 inches) m. E. Serial no.0044 bb 54287802 on 19.01.2016 through online purchase with the help of his son mr. A. Balavivekanandan for a total sum of rs.33, 990/-. But within four months of the purchase, the tv was functioning with only audio and no video output. After so many repeated phone calls made to free call centre for rectify the problem, they failed to respond. Hence, the petitioner’s son e-mailed made request to rectify the same on 04.06.2016, 08.06.2016 respectively. After this, the service staff from micromax service centre, tambaram came to my house and taken the tv for repair at their centre. After 15 days, on 25.06.2016 they handed over the tv by rectifying the problem. They charged rs.500/- for taking the tv for repair from my house to their tambaram tv service centre. Again, on 01.03.2017 the same tv got the same old problem, contacted them again for one and half months to rectify the same problem, the failed to attend the repair. On 12.04.2017, the technician from micromax service centre requested me to contact the mr. Irudhayaraj, manager about this.

:- 3 -:

The petitioner then contacted mr. Irudhayaraj, manager on 21.04.2017, 02.05.2017, 14.05.2017 through e-mail. After so many repeated complaints, still it was not honoured and attended. A complaint was sent to the micromax head office on 15.06, 2017 to repair the tv. After receiving this complaint on 20.06.2017, they failed to respond for this. Again on 12.07.2017, a reminder was sent and it was received by them on 14.07.2017, again they failed to respond. The second reminder was sent on 07.09.2017, which was received on 09.09.2017 by them and response. Finally, on 13.11.2017, through the legal counsel, the petitioner sent a notice to the chairman of the micromax tv company. The 1st opposite party received this notice on 15.11.2017, he also failed to respond to this. The petitioner claims that the said purchased tv within the one year warranty period was not functioning well, requested for a brand new tv for the old one or refund of the bill amount of rs.33, 990/- from the 1st opposite party along with rs.15, 000/- for the service defect, mental agony, financial burden as compensation amount with rs.3, 000/- as legal charges for the case. Hence, the petitioner requested compensation by filing this case.

2.in this case, the consumer forum sent a summon which was received by them, failed to appear in person for hearing, on 02.05.2018, the opposite party was declared as ex-parte by this forum.

3. The proof of affidavit was submitted by the petitioner, a proof of documents no.1 to no.12 were submitted marked as exhibits. The petitioner also submitted the written arguments. On the basis of oral arguments and review of the documents/records submitted, this case was decided.

4. The solution for the problem in this case as follows :-

1) whether the 1st opposite party is liable for replacing a new tv or an equivalent amount of rs.33, 990/- to the petitioner?
2) whether the opposite party is liable to pay a compensation of rs.15, 000/- for service defect and mental agony to the petitioner?

:- 4 -:

3) whether the petitioner will get the case charges?
4) what are the remedies will get the petitioner through this petition?

5. Problems no.1 to 3
The petitioner has filed this petition/complaint and the proof of affidavit submitted that he purchased a micromax tv with the help of his son mr. A. Balavivekanandan through online on 19.01.2016 and within four months from the purchase, the said tv mal-functioned. This was reported to the service centre, finally the micromax service centre, tambaram through their service engineer took the tv to their service centre, returned the tv after repairing the fault on 24.05.2016. Again the same problem occurred on 01.03.2017, after repeated request made through phone, finally on 2.04.2017, the service technician came from micromax service centre, tambaram, requested the petitioner to contact the manager of the service centre, tambaram. So, the petitioner contacted the said manager several times through e-mails, the petitioner sent several complaints to the 1st opposite party, the tv was not repaired or attended to rectify the problem. Hence, a new tv or the equivalent amount of the tv purchased as per bill and a compensation amount for mental agony, service defect an amount of rs.15, 000/- and an amount of rs.3, 000/- for case charges is being claimed by the petitioner.

7. It is proven and confirmed that the petitioner has purchased a micromax tv 50b600hd, 127 cm (50 inches) m. E. Serial no.0044 bb 54287802 on 19.01.2016 through online purchase for a total sum of rs.33, 990/- as per the records and documents submitted. Further, the purchased tv mal-functioned within four months of purchase (Only audio was heared and no video available), the petitioner sent a complaint to rectify the fault. The 1st opposite party has received the complaint through e-mail on 04.06.2016. To prove this, the petitioner submitted the proof of evidence no.3 for this. Further, the petitioner has purchased the tv in january 2016, ever since 10.05.2016 the tv was not functioning well and he has identified the problems in the tv functioning and informed the same which was mentioned and submitted in proof of evidence no.3 by considering all this, the tv was mal-functioned with problems within the four months of the purchase date by the petitioner is understandable. After several complaints by phone and e-mails by the petitioner to rectify the fault, without doubt that the opposite party has failed to either respond in time or rectify the fault by service defect.
:- 5 -:

8. The petitioner has sent a register letter on 15.06.2017 to the 1st opposite party, which is earmarked as proof of evidence no.5, and the mentioned details are as follows ;

In may 2016 (After 4 months), the tv comes under repair and the picture quality was very poor and the matter was reported. Then suddenly the tv was incapable of showing the picture. My family was unhappy ever since. I register complaints over phone and currently sent the complaints with concern through e-mail, i attached copies of e-mail dated 4.6.2016 on 8.6.2016 (Encl-2 and encl-3). After prolonged complaints only the tv was made serviceable on 25.6.2016.
Again on 1.3.2017 (After 9 months) the same problem occurs. I sent the complaint immediately. The chennai tambaram micromax service centre visited your retail outfit again and again.
Finally after one and half months the micromax service centre technician (Chennai branch) helplessness and demanded for 85% cost of the tv to make serviceable. I sent three e-mail on 21.4.17, 21.5.17 and 16.5.17 (Encl.-4). To the chennai-tambaram service centre manager for inform me to the actual service charge till date (10.6.17), i did not get reply.
At this juncture, i request you earnestly to replace the said micromax led tv. The same problem (Video problem) occurs from 4th month onwards till date. So that peace will prevail in my family. The untold mental agony and torture that i experienced is manifold. If you replace the with a new one or no other way go to expect to employ an advocate and approach the consumer court and get the job done. Again and again, i insist the fault is on the part of your company and i should not betray for it. Hence, please consider the genuiness of the consumer and replace another tv as a remedial measure within fifteen (15) days.

9. The 1st opposite party received the letter, they failed to reply for it. It is earmarked as proof of evidence no.6, as the 1st opposite party received the letter. Further, the petitioner sent a letter on 6.7.2017 to the 1st opposite party, which was received by them. Again on 2.9.17, a letter was sent to the 1st opposite party, again no reply was sent for it. This was proven by the submitted proof of evidence no.7, 8, 9 and 10. Finally the petitioner through his legal counsel sent a legal notice on 11.12.2017 to the 1st opposite party which was received by them and no reply was sent by the 1st opposite party, the petitioner has filed this case in this

:- 6 -:
Forum. Further, the opposite party has not appeared in person or produced any evidence in this forum for the denying the charges made.

10. By reviewing all the documents submitted by the petitioner, the purchase of the tv product of the 1st opposite party was faulty within four months of the purchase date. After rectifying the problem, again the same problem occurred within 9 months, the petitioner reported the same several times, the repair was not attended. The 1st opposite party has made service defect by not rectifying the problem. The 1st opposite party created the situation of mental agony to the petitioner and it forced him to appeal this case in this forum. So, as per the petition filed, the petitioner is eligible for a replacement of new tv or an equivalent amount of rs.33, 990/- to be paid by the 1st opposite party to the petitioner on default. Also, the 1st opposite party is liable to pay compensation amount a sum of rs.10, 000/- to the petitioner for service defect and rs.3, 000/- as case charges to the petitioner as it deemed fit as the remedy for this case.

11. Problem no.4
Finally this petition is partially approved.in this case, the petitioner sought compensation from the 1st opposite party as either replacement of same model tv for the purchase of micromax tv 50b600hd, 127 cm (50 inches) m. E. Serial no.0044 bb 54287802 on 19.01.2016 through online or the equal amount of rs.33, 990/- (Rupees thirty three thousand nine hundred and ninety only) the value of the tv purchased as per bill may be given to the petitioner with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing this petition till the date of disbursement within two months from this date of judgement.

The said micromax tv 50b600hd, 127 cm (50 inches) m. E. Serial no.0044 bb 54287802 on 19.01.2016 through online purchased has mal-functioned within a short time, the 1st opposite party has failed to rectify the fault or replacing the faulty tv with a new one and made service defect. Due to this, it created mental agony, loss of peace, it is awarded rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner by the 1st opposite party and rs.3, 000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation/case charges, totally rs.13, 000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand only) to be paid by the 1st opposite party to the petitioner. This

:- 7 -:

May be paid to the petitioner by the 1st opposite party within two months from this date of this judgement. If failed to pay the said amount (Rs.10, 000/- + rs.3, 000/- = rs.13, 000/-), the 1st opposite party should pay the entire amount with an interest rate of 9% from the date of judgement till the date of realization of amount.

The case against the 2nd opposite party has been dismissed.

For explanation, it was typed and corrected on 03rd july, 2018 by me and the judgement awarded.

Sd./- sd./- sd./-
Member member chairman
(Mr. D. Babu varadarajan) (Mrs. K. Pramila) (Mr. J. Justin david)

List of documents submitted as proof of affidavit

1) pmd no.1 - copy of the bill for purchase of tv dated 19.01.2016

2) pmd no.2 - copy of the ration card of the petitioner

3) pmd no.3 - copy of the e-mail sent by the petitioner to the 1st opposite party dated 04.06.16 and 08.06.16.

4) pmd no.4 - copy of the e-mail dated 21.04.17, 02.05.17 and 14.05.17 sent to the 2nd opposite party by the petitioner for the second time tv mal-functioned.

5) pmd no.5 - copy of the letter sent to the 1st opposite party by the petitioner dated 15.06.17.

6) pmd no.6 - copy of the acknowledgement for receiving the letter by the 1st opposite party sent by the petitioner dated 20.06.17

7) pmd no.7 - copy of the 2nd letter sent by the petitioner to the 1st opponent party dated 12.07.17

8) pmd no.8 - copy of the acknowledgement for receiving the letter by the 1st opposite party sent by the petitioner dated 14.07.17

9) pmd no.9 - copy of the 2nd letter sent by the petitioner to the 1st opponent party dated 07.09.17

:- 8 -:

10) pmd no.10 - copy of the acknowledgement for receiving the letter by the 1st opposite party sent by the petitioner dated 14.09.17

11) pmd no.11 - copy of the legal notice dated 12.11.2017

12) pmd no.12 - copy of the acknowledgement for receiving the legal notice dated 15.11.2017


Opposite party’s proof of affidavit

- not submitted -

Sd./- sd./- sd./-
Member member chairman
(Mr. D. Babu varadarajan) (Mrs. K. Pramila) (Mr. J. Justin david)