DATE OF FILING                    :     14.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      17.10.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     22.07.2015.  

Firoz  Ahmed,

son of Sri Tajommal Hussain

of NJMC 2/45, Village & P.O. Banipur, P.S. Sankrail,

District Howrah,

PIN 711 304. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         Chekpoint Service  Centre,

Micromax Mobiles Ltd.,

223/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya  Road, Dalalpukur,

P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah.

2.         NU YORK Teleworld,

1 R.N. Mukherjee Road,

Martin Burn Building ( opposite Lalbazar H.Q. ),

Kolkata  – 7000 01.

3.         Customer Care Officer,

Micro Info Ltd.,

90B, Sec 18, Gurgaon,

Hariyana 122015,

India. ……………………………………………………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, Firoz Ahmed, against the o.ps. Chek point  Service Centre  and two others praying for a direction on the o.ps. to refund the entire purchase amount of the phone and direct the parties to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- being damages for professional loss when the  petitioner is an advocate and to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment.   

2. The further case of the petitioner is that he purchased one CDMA Micromax mobile handset being model no. CC 222 with IMEI no. 911249803164913 on 21.6.2014 from Nu York Teleworld, o.p. no. 2. On the date of purchase the handset started hanging and on the  second day the petitioner went to the shop room and told about the problems but the  shopkeeper asked him to go to o.p. no. 3 being Micromax Service Centre and he went there on the 4^th day of purchase and the service centre took the mobile and returned the same to the petitioner  stating that it was o.k. But the problem continued and he visited the service centre again and again and lost several hours therein. The petitioner visited the service centre for a number of times and lastly kept the same in the service centre for 10/15 days but all efforts went in vain. He requested for replacement of the phone but the o.ps. refused. The petitioner suffered profession loss as a lawyer. The cause of action arose on 21.6.2014 and continued further. Hence the case with the above prayers.    

3. The o.ps. though served with notice yet only the o.p. no. 1 appeared on 17.10.2014 but the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 did not appear. The o.p. no. 1 also did not continue further and thus the case is heard ex parte against all the o.ps.

4.         Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Besides his affidavit supporting the facts of the case the petitioner also filed several e.mails and also he filed the purchase documents being cash memo showing that he purchased the mobile phone on payment of Rs. 2,550/- on 21.6.2014 and he has oral and documentary evidence proved the fact that the cell phone went out of order on the very date of purchase and the o.ps. would not provide any service to him by replacing the phone or by reporting the same and all the evidences of the petitioner went unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner which proved his case ex parte against the o.ps.

           In the result, the case succeeds.

           Court fee paid is correct.

      Hence,

                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

            That the C. C. Case No. 456  of 2014 ( HDF 456  of 2014 )  be and the same is  allowed ex parte with costs  against  the O.Ps. who are jointly and severally liable for the loss as well as damages suffered by him.    

      The petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for and the o.p. no. 1 being the manufacturer is to refund the entire amount of purchase and the petitioner to return the defective phone to the o.p. no. 1.

      The o.ps. are further directed to pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner for his professional loss and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment. Such payment be made by the o.ps. within 30 days from the date of this order failing the above sum would carry interest @ 9% p.a. after the stipulated period. 

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

             Let a copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.