DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 153 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 31/12/2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 22/07/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Asadulla Laskar, S/O – Nur Islam Laskar, Residing at vill. & P.O. - Kamaria, P.S. - Joynagar, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743337.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Swiss Plaza, Kachari Bazar, Kulpi Road, Baruipur, Kolkata- 700 144, Authorized Service Centre of Voto.
2. Voto, Redington Indian Limited, 79, Karathanamedu, Panpakkani village Kauaralpatial, Gummudipundi Taluk Jhiruvallur, Dist. – TN (601206).
3. Das care, Service Centre (Baruipur W.B.), Manimala Apartment, Subuddhipur, Kalpukur, Arup Bhadra Sarani, Baruipur, West Bengal, Beside Baruipur Eye Hospital.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
With allegation of defect in mobile set purchased by the complainant from O.P. no. 1, he has filed the instant case under section 12, CP Act, 1986.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant purchased one mobile handset from O.P. no. 1 on 28.02.2018 with warranty service for one year from the date of purchase. O.P. no. 3 is the service centre of O.P. no. 2 who is the manufacturer of the mobile. A few months after purchasing the mobile, the mobile set did not function properly and therefore the complainant took the said set to O.P. no. 3 on 26.06.2018 for repairing service. O.P. no. 3 told him that there was problem in battery backup as well as charging problem. However, the mobile set was returned to the complainant on 26.07.2018 after doing repairs. But, still the mobile set did not work and the O.P.s paid no heed to the grievance of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case praying for replacement of the said mobile set by a new one and also for payment for compensation to him by the O.P.s. Hence, this case.
Summons in the case has been served upon the O.P.s, vide postal track report kept in record. But, the O.P.s do not turn up to contest the case and therefore the case is heard ex-parte against them.
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of complaint, vide his petition dated 01.04.2019.
DECISION WITH REASONS
It transpires in evidence of the complainant that he purchased a mobile set on 28.02.2018 for a consideration price of Rs. 6,449/- from O.P. no. 1. It also transpires on evidence that the said mobile set stopped functioning on 26.06.2018 i.e. about 4 months after it was purchased. Its battery stopped supply of power and touch screen also stopped functioning. The complainant therefore deposited the mobile set to O.P. no. 3 and O.P. no. 3 issued a job sheet, a copy of which has been placed on record by the complainant. There is a column of “Repairs Details” in his job sheet dated 26.06.2018. On perusal of the said job sheet, it is found there is nothing noted in the job sheet under the head “Repairs Details” by O.P. no. 3. The column of “Repair Details” has remained blank. O.P. no. 3 should have noted in this column what repairs have been conducted in the mobile set of the complainant. Absence of details of repairs in this column implies and implies only that the defect which arose in the mobile set of the complainant was not repairable and therefore nothing was written in the job sheet about the repairs done by O.P. no. 3. All these undisputed facts go a long way to prove that the mobile set suffers from manufacturing defect which is not remediable by repairs. Further, it also goes to establish on record that the defect of the mobile set arose within the warranty period. The mobile set of the complainant carries one year’s warrantee and this is so stated by the complainant in his application made before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, South 24 Parganas. As the defect arose within the period of warranty service, the complainant is entitled to repair / replacement of his mobile set free of cost and the O.P.s are bound to fulfill their warranty agreement. They will have to replace the mobile set of the complainant without any cost. Regard being had to all these, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief and reliefs are accorded as hereunder.
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. 2,000/-.
The O.P.s are directed to replace the old mobile set, IMEI nos. 351662095034098 / 351662095034106 of the complainant by a new one of same kind, free from defect, within a month of this order failing which the O.P.s will refund the consideration price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 6,449/- to the complainant with a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant within a month thereafter and if the refund amount and compensation amount plus cost amount are not paid within the aforesaid time, those amount will bear interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till full realization thereof. At the same time, the complainant is directed to hand over his old mobile set to the O.P.s in case of replacement of the same by the O.P.s.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a copy of this judgment at once free of cost to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
