West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/13/141

Pratik Kumar Saha, S/o Lt. Manoj Kr. Saha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Manager, Nokia Care Centre, Suri Range, - Opp.Party(s)

S. Acharya

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

This is a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

In a nutshell the complainant’s case is that Pratik Kumar Saha purchased a mobile set named Nokia Lumia 520 from S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (p) Ltd. (O.P No.2) after paying Rs. 9500 on 09.07.2013. At the time of purchasing the complainant was insisted by the sales girl of the O.P No.2 to install an antivirus software and one net setup software and the complainant paid Rs. 1500 for the same. After that the service person of O.P No.2 connected the mobile set with a laptop and told to the complainant that software was installed, but the internet was not connected and told the complainant to go to the customer care center. Accordingly the complainant went to the Customer Care Centre at Kolkata and at Suri (O.P No.1) and officer of the Customer Care Centre told him that there is no need of antivirus or net setup software for that phone as that is a window phone and the above mentioned software had not been installed. Thereafter, that particular handset stopped working within 7days of purchasing and the complainant went to the shop of O.P No.2 for replacement of the phone. But the O.P No.2 did not pay any heed. The complainant also sent a written representation through registered post but the O.P No.2 remained ideal and inactive. Finding no other way, the complainant filed this case.  The complainant prayed for the reliefs as per the complaint.

The O.P No.1 has contested the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations made in the petition of complaint. The O.P No.1 stated that the O.P No.1 has no knowledge about the incident as the service center of the O.P No.1 was opened on 16.12.2013 i.e. after filing of this case on 21.11.2013 and the complainant did not go to O.P No.1 after detecting the defect of handset mobile and O.P No.1 is not liable for any act done by the others. The O.P No.1 has also said that the mobile has a manufacturing​ defect and the handset mobile was also mishandled and for that, the problem might be cropped up and the O.P No.1 is not responsible for that and the O.P No.1 rendered service as per terms and conditions. The O.P No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with heavy cost as the O.P No.1 has no deficiency in service.

The O.P No.2 has not appeared but after receiving the notice from this Forum the O.P No.2 sent a letter to the complainant with a copy to this Forum inviting the complainant to sort out the problem and after that the O.P No.2 has not turned up to contest the case. Therefore the case has proceeded ex parte against O.P No.2.

Both the complainant and O.P No.1 have filed evidence-in-chief. The complainant has also filed some relevant documents. Ld. Lawyer of the complainant and O.P No.1 have filed written arguments and made oral arguments also.

There is no disputes regarding the purchasing of mobile by the complainant from O.P No.2. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the complainants on record. It is clear from those documents that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 09.07.2013 by paying Rs. 9500 to S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (p) Ltd. vide tax-invoice No. 09782 with one year warrantee. It is also clear from the tax invoice No. 15832 and tax invoice No. 15839 that the complainant had paid Rs. 699 for antivirus loading and Rs. 799 for net setup respectively and the S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (p) Ltd. i.e. O.P No.2 had received all the above mentioned amounts by putting their stamps and signature on the vouchers. The documents also reveal that the complainant sent a written representation regarding the problem in the mobile set on 22.08.2013 to the O.P No.2. From the evidence on affidavit of the complainant and from that written representation we find that, on and from, the day of purchasing the mobile set was not working properly and the sales person has advised the complainant to go to the service center. On the other hand O.P No.2 after receiving the notice from this Forum has not challenged the complaint and has not also contested the case, rather, invited the complainant to sort out the problem. Therefore, we can conclude that the allegation of the complainant appears to be true. Moreover, the O.P No.1 who is the service center of the Nokia Company, has stated in his evidence in chief that the mobile set in question has manufacturing defect. The O.P No.1 is none but service center of Nokia Company. When O.P No.1 has clearly stated that the mobile in question has manufacturing defect, so it can be easily concluded that the mobile in question has manufacturing defect. Moreover, it is found that the complainant went to the shop of O.P No.2 for replacement of the defective mobile set within the warrantee period but the O.P No.2 did not pay any heed and this case is also filed before this Forum within the warrantee period. Therefore, in view of the above discussion it is clear that the O.P No.2 has sold a defective mobile set to the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part the O.P No.2. The O.P No.1 has no liability in this matter. Therefore, complainant’s case stands but in part.

​

Proper fees have been paid.

            Hence, 

O R D E R E D                                        

that C.F Case No. 141/2013 be and the same is allowed on ex parte against O.P No.2 in part and dismissed against O.P No 1.

The O.P No.2 is directed to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant by a new one or refund the value of that mobile set i.e. Rs. 9500 with interest @10% per annum from the date of purchasing i.e on and from 09.07.2013 till the realization of the amount. The O.P No.2 is also directed to refund Rs. 1500 to the complainant with interest @10% per annum on and from 09.07.2013 till the actual payment. The O.P No.2 is again directed to pay Rs. 3000 as litigation cost to the complainant. All such payment shall be made within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to put this order for execution as per law and procedure.

Copies of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost immediately.