West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/565/2014

Chandan Halder , S/O Sambhu Halder. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Spice Hotspot Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Soumen Mondal.

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR COMPLEX, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA - 144

 

C.C. CASE NO. ___565  OF ___2014____

 

DATE OF FILING : 21.11.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_30.11 .2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :  Smt.  Sharmi Basu                                            

 

COMPLAINANT                  :  Chandan Halder,s/o Shambhu Halder of 25/E, South Tangra Road, P.S now Pragati Maidan, Kolkata – 46.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :       1. Spice Hotspot Retail Ltd. Tribeni Market, Garia Main Road,

                                                       Opp. Shitala Mandir, P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata –84.

2.    Billenium Sales & Services (P) Ltd. Brabourne House, 6,   

Chowringhee Lane, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata – 16.

3. Spice Global Knowledge Park, Corporate Office Village Bilanwali Labana, P.O Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarah, Dist. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pin 173205.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

            The petition of complaint made under section 12 of the C.P Act ,1986 has been filed by Subrata Das against the O.Ps on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of  the O.Ps .

             It is the short case of the complainant that he purchased one Spice Mobile Handset on 18^th February, 2014  from the O.P-1 at a price of Rs.4000/- . The positive case of the complainant is that after purchase of the said mobile Handset of Spice the same developed various problems including the set becoming dead and hanged etc. On 20.6.2014 complainant visited the OP.P-2, the Service Center, and submitted the set with specific complaint,which was retutned to the complainant on 27.6.2014 after repair but the complainant experienced same problem ,for which he again on 28.6.2014 submit the set for repair.  After  obtaining development of the said phone set , complainant again found after some time that the set became dead and non-functioning. Ultimately complainant on 30.6.2014 sent a mail to Customer Care stating inter alia the facts of his surferings,requesting them to replace the defective set .But the Customer Care instead of replacement, handed over the set after repairing. But the problem persisted. On 6.8.2014 complainant sent a mail to the Chairman of O.P-3 narrating his harassment but the same remained un-replied. Hence, this case praying for refund of the money ,cost and compensation.

            The O.P nos. 1 and 2 ,although appeared in this case, did not file written version and did not take part in the hearing .

            O.P-3 files written statement denying all the materials leveled against it, containing inter alia that  case is not maintainable as there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P-3 Spice Mobility Ltd. and also has submitted that complainant should keep in mind Rule of Kaveat Emtor. Moreover, as the complainant has approached to the Authorized Service Centre(ASC) after the completion of complete four months from the date of purchase of handset, instead of immediately after purchasing the same, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 After scrutinizing vividly every nook and corner of the instant case and hearing minutely the case of the complainant from his Ld. Advocate, following points are in lime light for consideration:

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

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

            Before going  into the merits of the case it is needed to be mentioned here that as the O.P1 and 2  have not cared to file Written version  and as O.P-3 has not file any evidence, all the documents and averments of the complainant being unchallenged piece of testimony have been considered as true.

            After scrutinizing vividly the complaint, written version and other documents filed by the parties it appears that admittedly complainant purchased one Spice Mobile set  on 18.2.2014 from O.P-1 where the manufacturer is O.P-3 and the O.P-2 is the service center. The consideration of the mobile set is Rs.4000/- and immediately after purchase of the handset it has started problems and he went to the O.P-2 informing the dispute regarding the mobile set and after repairing the same it was returned to the complainant on 27.6.2014 . But the Mobile set has started giving problems again from 28.6.2014 and he deposited the same for repairing to the O.P-2. Ultimately on 6.8.2014 complainant sent a mail to the Chairman of O.p-3 narrating his harassment but the same was remained unreplied. Thereafter the complainant ran from pillar to post for redressal of his dispute with a request to replace the goods in question with a new one of same description but all in vein. Hence, the complainant has no other alternative but to file this case before this Forum with a prayer as mentioned in the complaint petition.

            We have gone through minutely the written version filed by the O.P-3. The submission of O.P-3 mentioning the legal maxim “Caveat Emptor” that buyer should be cautious is not sustainable in the instant case . Complainant purchased the handset from a seller where the O.p-3 is the manufacturer. This is not a case of the O.p-3 that allegation of the complainant is false and he has not purchased the new product manufactured by O.P-3 from the seller O.P-1. This is not also the case of the O.P-3 that the alleged defective goods was somehow misplaced by the complainant. Moreover, O.P-3 has submitted that the complainant has to approach to the authorized service center immediately after purchase of the goods in question . In this regard we should keep in mind the observation of the Hon’ble National Commission that if the goods in question is within the warranty period and has suffered any defect within six months from the date of purchase, manufacturer is liable for manufacturing defect of that goods.

            Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that as the mobile set in question was defective on and from 20.6.2014  where the date of purchasing of the same is 18.2.2014 , the mobile set has manufacturing defect and O.P-3 is liable to replace the same with a new one of same specification as per provision of section 14 of the C.P Act. Being seller O.P-1 also cannot shrug off its responsibility and is liable for selling the mobilset having manufacturing defect.

            As a result the case succeeds.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the case is decreed exparte against O.P.1 with cost and O.P.2 with cost and on contest with cost against O.P.-3.

The O.P-3 is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one of same specification within 45 days from this date.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within 45 days from this date, failing which both the O.P. 1 and O.P.-3 jointly and /or severally shall pay Rs. 100/- per day after the aforesaid stipulated period till full and final compliance of this order in its entirely.

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    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 decreed exparte against all the O.Ps with cost.

The O.P-3 is directed to replace the mobile set with a new one of same specification within 45 days from this date.

The O.P nos. 1 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within 45 days from this date.

Let a plain copy of judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

 

                                    Member                                                           President