West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/140/2015

Rakibur Rahaman C/O Mujibar Rahaman. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anannya Infotel Micromax Service Centre. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _140_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 23.3.2015                  DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 31/07/2015

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Jinjir Bhattacharya

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT              :   Rakibur Rahaman,c/o Mujibar Rahaman, Vill. Taranagar, P.O Buinchbati, P.S. Joynagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743338

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   Anannaya Infotel (Micromax Service Centre),44, Shyamapally, Jadavpur, (Ground Flooor), Kol-32, P.S. Jadavpur.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant case has been filed by the complainant under section  12 of the C.P Act, 1986 with allegation of deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile set , manufactured by Micromax on 5.12.2014 and within warranty period due to some technical fault he deposited the mobile set for repairing to the O.P, Micromax Service Centre namely Anannaya Infotel and after receiving the mobile in question O.P gave a job sheet  to the complainant .

On receiving the mobile set he noticed that instead of his own mobile set O.P handed over another defective mobile set to him. He objected and requested to hand over his mobile set but O.P did not pay heed to his request and misbehaved with him. Thereafter, he ran from pillar to post for redressal of his dispute but all in vein. Hence the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his dispute with prayer as mentioned in the complaint petition.

            The O.P even after valid service by summon did not appear before this Forum and the instant case is heard exparte in absence of O.P and all the documents brought before this Forum and the complaint petition being unchallenged testimony considered as true.

After scrutinizing four corners of the case following points are in limelight :

 

 

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps under the purview of the C.P Act.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

                                                            Decision with reasons

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

It is crystal clear from the record that the complainant deposited his mobile set to the O.P, service centre , but the O.P handed over him instead of his own mobile set, another old mobile set ,which was earlier used by the a person, namely Shri Sibnath Mondal at lest from 1.10.2014. it is pertinent to mention that the complainant purchased the new mobile set on 5.12.2014 . Therefore, it is quite impossible that the brand new mobile was used on 1.10.2014 by him. Therefore, scrutinizing the details of items of message box of the disputed mobile, which has been filed by the complainant on affidavit, it is strongly opined by this Forum that the O.P though received for repairing the mobile set of the complainant which was almost new but returned him a old mobile which was used earlier by another person.

Moreover, on affidavit the complainant has also submitted that the IEMI number of the new mobile was different from the IMEI number of the present mobile set which was given to him after repairing . It is a fact that every mobile set has an inherent inbuilt IMEI number and in the instant case O.P cold not be able to rectify the IMEI number of the mobile set which the O.P fraudulently handed over the complainant instead of own mobile of the complainant.

Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, and considering the four corners of the case we have no hesitation to hold that O.P has not only committed deficiency in service towards the complainant but also grossly liable for mal-practice. It is also observed by us that O.P is liable to pay the complainant the price of the mobile set in question and also to aptly compensate the complainant due to the aforesaid deficiency in service and mal-practice of the O.P , the complainant has to suffer tremendous mental agony and harassment.

            Thus all the points are discussed and both the points are in favour of the complainant.

            Therefore, the complaint succeeds.

 

 

 

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case is allowed in part exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund  the cost of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs.2,380/-(Rupees two thousand three hundred eighty only) and to pay Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) as compensation for his tremendous mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in serviced and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P and Rs.3000/- (three thousand) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

                                               

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                                           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 allowed in part exparte with cost.

The O.P is directed to refund the cost of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs.2,380/-(Rupees two thousand three hundred eighty only) and to pay Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) as compensation for his tremendous mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in serviced and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P and Rs.3000/- (three thousand) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from this date.

                                               

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

Member                                               Member                                               President