View 9717 Cases Against Mobile
Samirendra Nath Pal. filed a consumer case on 30 Jun 2015 against 1. Phoenix International , Mobile Sales & service. in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/494/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Jun 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027
C.C. CASE NO. _494_ OF ___2014_
DATE OF FILING : 25.9.2014 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _30.6.2015_
Present Member(s) : Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya
COMPLAINANT : Samirendra Nath Pal, Novadaya Palli, Jambuni, P.O Bolpur, Birbhum, W.N 06, Pin-731204.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Phoenix International Mobile Sales & Services, 65/4, Graham Road, Kol-40. New address at Jadavpur, Kol-32, Opposite Bata Shoe Show Room.
2. Manager, Consumer Support Pantel Technologies Pvt. Ltd. E-33, Sector-63, Noida(U.P), 201301, India
3. HomeShop 18, 7th floor, FC-24, Sector-16A, Filmcity, Noida-201301,U.P.
4. Serve4you, R.O AC-27, Prafulla Kanan East Kestopur, Kolkata-700 001. W.B.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Jinjir Bhattacharya, Member
Having been attracted by an advertisement on a TV channel with “Home Shop 18”(O.P-3) ,the complainant placed an order for supply of Tablet manufactured by the O.P-2 Pantel Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And took delivery of the product ordered for on 30.12.2013 through First Flight Courier Services by making cash payment of Rs.6,999/- to the delivery person against issuance of retail invoice and warranty card.
After a few months the product was found defective and the complainant deposited it to the Service Center of the Manufacturer Phoenix International Mobile Sales and Services (O.P-1) through an agency named “Serve 4 you”. The O.p-1 demanded Rs.3200/- for repairing of the defective tab inspite of the Tab being within the warranty period. He requested the O.P-1 repeatedly for repair of his Tablet but got no response from his end. He then requested the Agency company “Serve 4 you” to help him in this regard. But the O.P-1 gave them same reply. Having been failure to get the Tablet repaired and proper services from the Agency Company as well as O.P-1, the complainant approached Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices with his complaint but on receipt of notice the O.Ps did not bother to appear before that authority. Hence, the complaint with the relief/reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.
The complainant originally filed the complaint petition on 25.9.2014 in this Forum. Notices were served upon the two O.Ps whose names appeared in the said petition of complaint. Subsequently the complainant was allowed to file an amended complaint which the complainant filed on 1.4.2015.
Only the O.P-1 i.e. Phonix International Mobile Sales and Services filed a written version against the first petition of the complainant. Other O.Ps did not take part in the proceedings and the case proceeded exparte against them.
O.P-1, however, did not file any additional written version after filing of amended complaint by the complainant despite opportunity for filing of the same was given to him. O.P-1 also did not take part in the hearing. So, complainant was heard exparte.
Decision with reasons
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint and the documents filed by the complainant. We find that the complainant was issued a retail invoice under no.NITCDRH/DRH/12/2013/979687 dated 24.12.2013 by North India Top Company (P) Ltd. with invoice value Rs.6999/- for the product BSNL Penta Dual Core Android Calling Tabtop-Red , one pcs. In the COD order and collect cash only sub order no.69177459 is found recorded.
Annexure C of the complaint petition shows that “Serve 4 you”issued a job sheet under no.2971 dated 28.2.2014 ,wherein defects in the product BSNL Penta Dual Core Andorid Calling Tabtop-Red on pcs have been recorded.
On receipt of the product by the service center Phoenix International under receipt no.1982 dated 3.3.2014 along with the job sheet for service/repair of the product (Annexure D) . It is also seen that there were several correspondences between the Agency “Serve 4 you”with the Service Center Phoenix International regarding the defects in the Tablet and also regarding payment of more than Rs.3000/- by the Service Center of the manufacturer at Noida for repair of the Tablet.
The O.P-1 shakes off its liability by referring to the correspondences made in this regard by the complainant with the agency and the O.P-2. According to O.P no. 1, O.P-2 is the manuifacturer of the product and so only the O.P-2 is responsible for removal of the defect in its product and is liable for the repair of the defective product. But we hold that O.P-1 was responsible for repair of product free of cost because the period of warranty was in force at the material point of time. It was his duty to take up the matter with the manufacturer and get the product either repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant or replace by a new one. Under no circumstances the customer (complainant) can be made to suffer for the same. We further hold that the O.P-1 and O.P-2 are equally liable for the deficiency in services in this regard.
O.P-3 and 4 being the advertiser and agency company cannot be held liable in the matter of rendering services to the complainant. So, the petition of complaint is allowed exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed on exparte against the O.P nos. 3 and 4 and it is,
Ordered
That the O.P nos. 1 and 2 will jointly and/or severally replace the Penta BSNL Tablet of same standard and quality and of the same specification and deliver the same to the complainant free of cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
O.P nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by a/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant jointly and/or severally to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and suffering of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 shall also pay jointly and/or severally to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- by a/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member Member
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 O.P nos. 1 and 2 will jointly and/or severally replace the Penta BSNL Tablet of same standard and quality and of the same specification and deliver the same to the complainant free of cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
O.P nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by a/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant jointly and/or severally to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and suffering of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 shall also pay jointly and/or severally to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- by a/c payee cheque in favour of the complainant as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
Let a copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.