DATE OF FILING                    :     11.02.2015.

DATE OF S/R                            :      24.03.2015.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     18.06.2015.

Chandan Sharma,

son of Sri Mahendra Sharma,

resident of  20/4,  Guha  Road, Ghusuri,

Howrah 711107. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1. Arvind Telenet,

     18, Girish  Ghosh Lane, Ghusuri,

     Howrah  711101,

     being represented by its proprietor Arvind Shaw,

     son of late Sajjan Lal  Gupta,

     having its place of business at

     18, Girish  Ghosh Lane,  Ghusuri,

     Howrah 711107.

2. Karuna Management Service Pvt. Ltd.,

having registered office at

207, C.R. Avenue, Meridian Plaza,

Kolkata 700006.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

having its registered office at

A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi, 110044. ………………………………………….………….OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

            Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).   

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Chandan Sharma, praying for a direction upon the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 being Karuna Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. respectively to replace the requisite parts of the mobile phone at their own costs and handover the set to the petitioner and also direct the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 to pay Rs. 35,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.

    

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one smart handset Samsung mobile phone model no. GT S7562UWAINU from the o.p. no. 1 namely Arvind Telenet of 18, Girish Ghosh Lane, Ghusuri, Howrah 711107, for the use of his younger brother, Banti Sharma, who pursues his carrier in Chartered Accountants and Company Secretariatand uses the phone for the said purpose. After a few months of purchase, the LCD of the handset started troubling and used to be hung. The petitioner visited the service centre in April, 2014 at Minto Park Service Centre who repaired the same butthe same problem was not repaired properly. The petitioner again went to the service centre. On 08.10.2014 his brother went to the authorized service centre of o.p. no. 3 and engineer therein told him that the LCD Screen of the handset was damaged and assured that they would replace the same free of costs.The petitioner as well as his brother made on line complaint to Samsung Service Centre and sent several emails to the Directors and Management of the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 but all their efforts went in vain and then theyapproached Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices and then this Forum.

    

3. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 though served with notice did not appear in the case and only o.p. no. 3 appeared and submitted that the case is not maintainable and the petitioner has no cause of action to file the case and they offered him due service and prayed for dismissal of the case. But this o.p. no. 3 also did not continue to contest the case and thus the case is heard ex parte against o.p. no. 3 as well as o.p. nos. 1 & 2.

    

    

4. The only point to be decided whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. In support of the case, the petitioner filed documents being his purchase receipt proving the fact that he purchased the mobile Samsun being model no. GT S7562UWAINU on 09.10.2013 on payment of consideration money of Rs. 9,500/-. Besides, he also produced documents like attending the service centre for repair on several times and lastly he filed this case. It is noticed that he approached the service centre within the warranty period but the o.ps. failed and neglected to repair and replace the handset which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and he prayed for replacement of the requisite parts at the cost of the o.ps. and compensation as well as litigation costs.

6. The case of the petitioner is proved by the ex parte evidence produced by the petitioner which all went unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.

           In the result, the claim case succeeds.

           The court fee paid is correct.

      Hence,

                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 54  of 2015 ( HDF 54 of 2015 )  be and the same is   allowed ex parte  against  the O.Ps. with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by o.p. nos. 2 & 3 being  Rs. 1,000/- each.   

      The O.Ps. are directed to replace the requisite parts of the mobile phone of the petitioner within  30 days from the date of this order and keep the phone in running condition and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental harassment.        

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.