DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 73 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING: 17.06.2019 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 19.11.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barman
COMPLAINANT : Sujit Mondal, S/o – Gurupada Mondal, Aged about 46 years, Indian Inhabitant residing at Village Moynapur, P.O. – Khoria, Moynapur, P.S. – Uluberia, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Sarfaraj Mobile Centre, Kalikapur Station Road, P.S. – Sonarpur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743330.
2. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., C/O – R.K. Mobile Service, Pramila House, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, P.O. & P.S. – Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144, Dist. - South 24 Parganas.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant purchased one smart mobile phone of GSM INTEX AQUALIONS X1 IMEI 911602650522227, 2-911602650 522239 on 01.08.2018 from the shop of O.P. no. 1 on payment of Rs. 5,500/-. But the mobile phone did not work smoothly; its battery set went disordered and therefore the complainant deposited the mobile phone set with O.P. no. 2 i.e. the service centre of the mobile company on 27.09.2018. The mobile set was returned to the complainant on 12.12.2018 after repair. The complainant came back to his house and found that the mobile set did not work and it was in the same condition as before. So, with allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s, he has come up before the forum for filing of the instant case praying for passing a necessary order directing the O.P.s to deliver a new mobile set to him and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
Notice of the case is served upon the O.P.s, vide postal track report dated 29.07.2019, but none of the O.P.s appears to contest the case and therefore the case is heard ex-parte against them.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the O.P.s guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the complainant vide his petition dated 23.10.2019.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 and 2:
It is stated by the complainant in his petition of complaint which is treated as his evidence that he purchased a mobile set from O.P. no. 1 and that he deposited the said set with the service centre i.e. O.P. no. 2 on 27.09.2018 when the mobile set did not function at all. It also transpires in his evidence that he received the mobile set back on 12.12.2018 from O.P. no. 2. But, having coming back to his house, he found that the mobile set did not work. All these evidences of the complainant go unchallenged and we have nothing to disbelieve such evidence of the complainant. That apart, the complainant has also filed a document i.e. “Service request”, issued by O.P. no. 2 and it is seen therefrom that O.P. no. 2 received the mobile set from the complainant on 27.09.2018. The copy of cash memo is also filed on record by the complainant and it goes to demonstrate that the complainant purchased a mobile set on 01.08.2018 from O.P. no. 1 for a consideration price of Rs. 5,500/-. From all these materials, it stands irresistibly proved that the mobile set of the complainant went out of order within a period of 2 months from its purchase. It also stands established by “Service request” that there is no battery back up in the mobile set of the complainant. The test of new goods is certainly enjoyable to the purchaser and when the goods are found defective, such test becomes sour. The complainant purchased a new mobile set. But, he has not been able to savour the test of this new mobile. O.P. no. 1 has supplied a defective mobile to him and unless it had been defective, it would not have been gone out of order within 2 months of its purchase. These facts speak for themselves that the O.P.s are guilty of deficiency in service. O.P. no. 1 has also adopted unfair trade practice by supplying a defective mobile to the complainant. The mobile has gone defective within its warranty period. The O.P.s will have to change it, so that the complainant can savour the test of new mobile purchased by him. Both the O.P.s are authorized agents of the manufacturing company of the mobile and therefore both of them are held guilty for deficiency in service.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against the O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
Both the O.P.s are directed to replace the old mobile set to the complainant by a new one of similar kind within a month of this order, failing which O.P. no. 1 will have to refund the entire consideration price i.e. Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. If the complainant is provided with a new mobile set by O.P. no. 1, he will return the old mobile set to the O.P.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree President
Member
Directed and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed ex-parte against the O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
Both the O.P.s are directed to replace the old mobile set to the complainant by a new one of similar kind within a month of this order, failing which O.P. no. 1 will have to refund the entire consideration price i.e. Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. If the complainant is provided with a new mobile set by O.P. no. 1, he will return the old mobile set to the O.P.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
