West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/80/2015

Ashok Goswami, S/O Badal Kumar Goswami. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/S. Watch Centre. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _80_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 13.2.2015                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _13.8.2015___

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Ashok Goswami,s/o Badal Kumar Goswami of 36/B, Dinesh Nagar, Mukundapur, P.S. Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata – 99.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. M/s Watch Centre, at 135, Rash Behari Avenue, Gariahat,Kol-29

  2. Anannaya Infotel (Micromax Service Centre),44, Shyamapally, Jadavpur, (Ground Flooor), Kol-32, P.S. Jadavpur.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile set , manufactured by Micromax on 15.02.2014 from the seller O.P-1 at a price of Rs.1850/- and within warranty period due to some technical fault he deposited the mobile set for repairing to the O.P-2, Micromax Service Centre namely Anannaya Infotel and O.P-2 handed over the mobile set after removing the defect. Soon after he observed that the headphone was not functioning and the brightness of the LCD of the mobile was blinking. Thereafter he visited O.P-2 with request for servicing of the cell phone in question. The O.P-2 assured him and asked him to wait there for sometime . But after one hour the O.P asked him that the phone would be required for more examination and advised him to leave the said phone there and accordingly he kept his phone there and on next date over phone O.P-2 informed him that the mobile in question incurred liquid damage and demanded service charge. Henceforth, the complainant requested the O.P-2 time and again to hand over his mobile set after repairing the same but all in vein. Hence, the complainant has no other alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his dispute with prayer as mentioned in the complaint petition.

Both the O.Ps even after valid service by summons did not appear before this Forum and the instant case is heard exparte in absence of O.Ps and all the documents brought before this Forum and the complaint petition being unchallenged testimony considered as true.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

1.  Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” as per definition of the C.P Act, 1986 .
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps under the purview of the C.P Act.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

                                                            Decision with reasons

All the points are taken together for discussion as they are interrelated.

From the record it is crystal clear that the complainant purchased a cell-phone from O.p-1 , seller and O.P-2 is authorized service centre of the manufacturer of the goods in question. The complainant paid the full consideration of that cell phone to the seller. Therefore, the complainant is a “Consumer” as per definition under section 2(1)(d)(i) and 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986.

            The mobile set was firstly started problem within a very short period from the date of purchase ( Date of 1st repairing  of the mobile in question was  20/11/2014 and the date of purchase is15.02.2014.  It is also fact that being service provider, the O.P-2 should repair the mobile set free of cost. Initially in case of first problem of it, O.P-2 repaired the same but in the second time when complainant went with the defective mobile, with a hope to get defect free set after repairing by the O.P-2, free of cost. But, surprisingly O.P-2 kept the goods in question in their custody for a day without noticing and/or intimating the complainant about the alleged “liquid damage” but on the next day O.P-2 raised the point of allegation of “Liquid damage” which is not repairable by the O.P-2 free of cost. In this regard we are of the opinion that having opportunity to establish before this Forum the fact that the set in question had “liquid damage” instead of giving any evidential proof, to establish their case, if any, before this Forum,  O.P-2 has not appeared before this Forum even after ample of opportunity has given to the O.P-2.

Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, and considering the four corners of the case we have no hesitation to hold that O.P-2  has not only committed deficiency in service towards the complainant but also liable for gross negligence. It is also observed by us that O.P-2 is liable to pay the complainant the price of the mobile set in question and also to aptly compensate the complainant due to the aforesaid deficiency in service and negligence  of the O.P -2, for which the complainant has to suffer tremendous mental agony and harassment. We find no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1 , no effective order is passed against O.P-1.

            Thus all the points are discussed and the points are in favour of the complainant.

            Therefore, the complaint succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed in part exparte with cost against O.P-2 and without cost against O.P-1.

The O.P-2  is directed the cost of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs.1850/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred fifty only) and to pay Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) as compensation for his tremendous mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service and negligence  adopted by the O.P-2  and Rs.2000/- (two thousand) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which O.P-2 shall pay Rs.50/- per day after the stipulated period till full and final compliance of this order in its entirety.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                       

Ordered

That the case is allowed in part exparte with cost against O.P-2 and without cost against O.P-1.

The O.P-2  is directed the cost of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs.1850/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred fifty only) and to pay Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) as compensation for his tremendous mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service and negligence  adopted by the O.P-2  and Rs.2000/- (two thousand) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date, failing which O.P-2 shall pay Rs.50/- per day after the stipulated period till full and final compliance of this order in its entirety.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           Member                                               President