DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.

Consumer Complaint No.217 of 2015

Date of filing: 02.11.2015                                                                          Date of disposal:18.01.2016

Complainant: Satyanarayan Bhattacharyya, S/o.Sri Sudhakar Bhattacharyya, resident of 65,

                          Khalasipara New Kalna Link Road, Burdwan-713101, West Bengal.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: 1.Proprietor, Betar Silpa Kendra, Mobile Retail & Wholesale, 466, B.C. Road,

                                 Near CMS High School, Burdwan-713101.

                              2. Incharge, TVS Electronics Ltd., HTC Service Centre, J.K.Pal Lane, M.K.Plot,

                                   Benachity, Durgapur-713213.

                              3. Incharge, HTC India Pvt. Ltd., (DOPOD), G-4 BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30,

                                  near NH-8, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

Present :  Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal.

     Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Silpi Majumder.

Appeared for the Complainant: Authorized person R.S. Ganguly.

Appeared for the Opposite Parties:  None.

Order No.5, Dated: 18.01.2016

            This is a case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act with the prayer for an award directing the O.Ps. to replace the faulty mobile set by new seal pack set (HTC Desire 816) or to make payment of Rs.21,850/- with interest , the value of the set, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and harassment and to pay litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.

            The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant purchased one mobile set being model No.HTC Desire 816 at the cost of Rs.21,850/- from the O.P. No.1 vide tax voice No.2566 dated   20.10.2014, but  within a few months the  complainant came  to  know  that  the  set  is

                                                                                                                                       Contd…….P/2

(2)

defective.  He intimated the same to the O.P. No.1 and as per his advice, the complainant visited the service centre of HTC at Calcutta in three occasions on 13.4.2015, 29.4.2015 and12.5.2015 but the service centre failed to find out the fault.  Then the complainant contacted the O.P. No.2 as per advice of O.P. No.1, the seller company and he brought the set to the O.P. No.1 on 12.6.2015.  The representative and also the engineer of O.P. No.2 checked the set and subsequently delivered the same with repair report recommending ‘Re-Flash ROM image’ on 14.7.2015.  On receiving the set the complainant observed that the same defects were with the set.  The complainant reported the matter.  The company representative attended and repaired the set again on 22.7.2015 and returned the same to the complainant on 25.7.2015 with repair report recommending ‘Replace Earphone’. The complainant never brought any allegation that there was defect in the Earphone.  Practically the set was not repaired by the O.Ps. The complainant by writing a letter dated 26.9.2015 intimated the above fact to the O.Ps. and subsequently by writing letter dated 7.10.2015 intimated the matter to the O.P. No.3 with a request to replace the set and to solve the matter.  But no fruitful action was taken by the O.Ps. For the fault of the O.Ps. the complainant is being harassed.  The set is in the custody of the complainant without any use.  For the act of O.Ps. the complainant has been suffering very much in convenience harassment and mental agony.  So, the complainant is entitled to get an award.  Hence, this case with the prayer as mentioned above..

            Inspite of service of notices upon the O.Ps. of this case they did not appear in this case and did not contest this case by filing W.V. and appearing on the date of hearing.  So, this case was heard ex-parte against the O.Ps. 

DECISION WITH REASON

To prove this case the complainant has relied upon the photocopies of the warranty card, bill dated 20.10.2014, HTC repair report dated 14.7.2015, HTC repair report dated 25.7.2015, letter dated 26.9.2015, letter dated 7.10.2015 etc.

We  carefully  perused  the  contains  of  the  complaint  petition  and  the documents on

                                                                                                                          Contd…….P/3

(3)

which the complainant  has been relying.  The copy of the warranty card and other documents on which the complainant is relying, it appears that the complainant purchased the mobile set No.HTC Desire 816 at the cost of Rs.21,850/- from O.P. No.1 on 20.10.2014 and the defect as claimed by the complainant was detected within the warranty period.  It further appears that the O.Ps. took attempt several times to repair the mobile set but they failed to do so.  As the O.Ps. failed to repair the mobile set they had liability to replace the mobile set by new one or to refund the purchase value with interest to the complainant.  But the O.Ps. did not take any steps to give relief to the complainant.  It is not disputed that the complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps.  Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant the O.Ps. have failed to give relief to the complainant within a considerable period.  For the fault of O.Ps. the complainant has been suffering since 20.10.2014 and he has been forced to come before this Forum for relief.

By filing this complaint the complainant has prayed to pass an award against the O.Ps. directing them to replace the mobile set or to refund the purchase money of mobile set with interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost, to the complainant. Considering the materials on record we are of the opinion that to give a direction to the O.Ps. to refund the purchase value of the mobile set amounting to Rs.21,850/- along with interest after taking back the defective mobile set, to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complainant and directing to pay Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost, will meet the ends of justice.

In view of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds.  Fees paid is correct.  Hence, it is

ORDERED

that the complaint case being No.217/2015 is allowed ex-parte with cost.

            That the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs.21,850/- with interest  @ 12% p.a. from  the date  of purchase  i.e. 20.10.2014 after  taking back the defective

mobile  set   as  mentioned  in the  complaint,  to  pay  Rs.2000/- as  compensation  and  to  pay

                                                                                                                                    Contd……….P/4

(4)

Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the defective mobile set, failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realization and the complainant will be at liberty to put this award in execution in accordance with law. 

Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

      (Asoke Kr. Mandal)

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                        President       

                                                                                                                  D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                  (Asoke Kr. Mandal)

                           President

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                                                                               (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                                    Member    

                                                                            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan