DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __110_ _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING : 27.09.2018 DATE OF PASSINGJUDGEMENT:05.03.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Abhijit Midde, Vill. Mithakundu, P.O & P.S Kulpi, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743351.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. NOKIA CARE, Beharapara, Baruipur, Kol-144.
2. The Care Manager, TNS Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Flat no.820A, 8th Floor, Naurang House, 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi, India, 110001.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Discomfiture raised its ugly head whenever the complainant found that his brand new mobile purchased from the O.p-2 did not work at all. This incident has galvanized the complainant to file the instant complaint under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased a NOKIA mobile set on 1.9.2018 for Rs.15,999/- from the shop of O.P-2 and since the very day of purchase, the mobile set has shown to be completely delinquent. Its touch screen was out of order off and on. The complainant contacted the service center i.e the O.P-1 and O.P-1 reported that there was an inherent manufacturing defect in the display board and, therefore, the said defect cannot be cured by way of repairs. Now, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for refund of Rs.15999/- and also for payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Hence, the case.
The O.P-2 entered into appearance in the case, but he has not filed any written statement to contest herein and, therefore, the case proceeds exparte against him.
It is the O.P-1 who has filed written statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that he mobile touch screen went out of order due to internal mechanical injury caused by the complainant. They told the complainant to deposit the mobile set for repair, but he did not. Still, they are ready to replace the mobile set o f the complainant by a new one.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
The allegation of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set from O.P-2 and that mobile set did not work from the very day of purchase. It is also his case that ,he deposited the said set with the service centre of the company i.e O.P-1 and O.p-1 could not repair the same as there is an inherent manufacturing defect in it. O.P-1 has admitted that he is ready and willing to replace the mobile set of the complainant by a new one. In the midst of the aforesaid contentions of the parties, it appears that the allegations of the complainant stands admitted by the O.P-1 and, therefore, we think that it is a fit case in which a decree may be passed in favour of the complainant on admission of the allegation of the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on admission against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant having description and specification “NOKIA 6.1 +TA-1083 DS IN CM BLK 353385090543644” by a new one free from all kinds of defects within a period of 30 days, failing which, the O.Ps are directed to refund the entire consideration price of Rs.15,999/- to the complainant with a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation .
Let a free plain copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
