The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased on 22.07.2015 one SLIDE BRACE –XI No. 91/431850115002 mobile from M/S Anita Mobile Centre, at Sonapurhat of Uttar Dinajpur at a consideration of Rs. 16,500/- only. But the said mobile stopped operating and after 01 (one) month 09 (nine) days of purchase, the complainant had to give the same to the Service Centre, namely, ‘Connecting Point’ of Siliguri on 01.09.2015 (Annex-C) vide job-sheet No. IM-2217.The OP-Connecting point delivered the handset on 28.09.2015. The Job-sheet No. 228321561768689 (Annex-B) shows that the Mobile Set was, on that very date (28.09.2015), given for repair again and it was delivered to the complainant on 09.11.2015. The mobile had thus been under repair with the OP-Service Centre (Connecting Point) for 02 (two) months 08 (eight) days at a Stretch in consecutive 02 (two) phases.
After delivery, the handset functioned for only 01 (one) month 24 (twenty four) days and it had to be given to the OP on 04.01.2016 and kept with them for further repair vide Job-sheet No. 228321562195793 dtd. 04.01.2016 (Annex-D). One year of purchase completed on 21.07.2016 but the OP-Connecting Point could not deliver it till date.
After as many as 07 (seven) months of such deposit for the 03rd time on 04.01.2016, the complainant filed the case on
03.08.2016. However the complainant added, after some 09(nine) months, the seller of the Mobile, namely, M/S Anita Mobile Centre at Sonapurhat of Uttar Dinajpur, as OP No.2 by an amended plaint dtd. 05.05.2017.The first named complained against became thus OP No.1.
The service Centre (Siliguri) Connecting Point, i.e., now OP No.1 entered appearance on 23.09.2016 and prayed for time to file W/V.The time was allowed but they did not make right use of the time they themselves prayed for and the case proceeded, of course, ex-parte against OP No. 1 on and from 24.04.2017. The seller of the handset, i.e., Anita Mobile Centre (of Uttar Dinajpur) who was added on 05.05.2017 as OP No.2 appeared on 18.01.2019 but did not file any written version. The statutory period of filing W/V by the OP No.2 being over, the case proceeded ex-parte against them also since 06.03.2019. Thus the case proceeded uncontested by both the OPs.
The Complainant filed examination-in-chief. The case being proceeded uncontested, the complainant preferred to filing W/N/A on the same day, i.e., 19.12.2019. The argument was heard in full ex-parte and the date of delivering the final order fixed accordingly.
To prove his case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-
- Purchase Invoice Bill dt. 22.07.2015 (Annex-‘A’).
- Job sheet No. 228321561768689 dtd. 28.09.2015 (Annex-‘B’).
- Job Sheet dtd. 01.09.2015 (Annex-‘C’).
- Job Sheet No. 22831562195793 (Annex-‘D’).
- Money Receipt dt. 22.07.2015 (Annex-‘A’).
- Job Sheet No. 22831562195793 (Annex-‘D’).
On the basis of the above discussion, the following points come up for determination:-
- Whether the OP No. 2 has committed any unfair trade practice?
- Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief sought for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the 03 (three) points above are taken up in seriatim:-
Point No. 1.
The complainant purchased the mobile handset from OP No.1, who, in turn, issued a cash memo, of Sl. No. 283 dtd. 22.07.2015 for the amount paid as price by the complainant. The money receipt/cash memo contains two foot-notes-(1) goods once sold are not to be taken back and (2) all goods carry their respective manufacture warrantee. Complainant could however use the mobile only for 01 (one) month 10 (ten) days from the date of purchase before giving it to the service centre, i.e., OP No.1 for the first time. However, the said cash receipt does not state any warrantee/guarantee. The complainant has not furnished any separate warrantee/ guarantee card or paper, nor has he mentioned in the plaint any period of warrantee/guarantee. While the OP No.1 is alleged to have not given proper service towards repair, no allegation specifically could be levelled against OP No.2, the seller, by the complainant. The OP No.1, Service Centre, tried to make the mobile set serviceable but could not/did not mention ever any manufacturing defect. The complainant also has not furnished any documentary evidence as to the mobile set’s having any manufacturing defect.
Since the OP No.2 did not/could not dare to challenge the complaint by contesting the case, they deserve to be liable also but their liability shall remain limited to such extent as they could have contested.
Point No.2.
The intervening date in between the Annex-“C” and Annex-“B” respectively, i.e., 28.09.2015 transpires that the first repair by the OP No.1 miserably failed as the complainant could not use the set for a single day. The OP No.1 kept the mobile set with them for two months eight days from 01.09.2015 to 09.11.2015 for consecutive 02 phases and still the repaired mobile could not be used by the complainant for more than 01(one) months 25(twenty five) days and he had to take the handset to the OP No.1 again on 04.01.2016. The 01(one) year of the purchase of the said mobile set completed on 21.07.2016. The OP N o.1 could not yet make the set serviceable and it is lying still with the OP No.1.
The point NO.1 is thus answered in the affirmative.
Point No.3.
A consumer has been defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as a person who buys a goods for a consideration. Here the complainant Shri Dulal Ch. Roy bought a mobile set from OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 16.500/-. Thus the complainant falls within the definition of Consumer.
That a mobile set newly purchased could not be used for more than 01(one) month 09(nine) days appears not to be in the fitness of things. It is true that the mobile set being an electronic gadget admits of being out of order at any given moment and manufacturing company assures on that ground replacement or at least free repair though their Service Centre, in case their purchased product ever become unserviceable.
The complainant took the mobile set to the service centre, i.e., OP No.1 thrice, but they miserably failed to make the set good and workable. For the 03rd & last time ever, the OP No.1 took deposit of the mobile on 04.01.2016, i.e., within one year of purchase but OP No.1 could not/did not repair it and the set has been lying still with them.
Thus viewed, the service centre, i.e., OP No.1 has given a cause for jeopardy of the reputation of the company on one hand and for sufferings to the customer-complainant on the other for the reason best known to them.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to have the mobile set repaired fully and useful for the purpose which he bought it for. In the result, the case succeeds. Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No. 79/S/2016 be and same is allowed in part against OP No.2 and ex-parte against OP No.1.
The OP No.1 shall, by all means, make the mobile set good and serviceable through a full repair free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. In this regard they may contact other Service Centers for technical know-how and also OP No.2 if necessary, and may seek guidance of the manufacturing company either directly or through the OP No. 2, the seller. In case of failure to do so, the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the complainant an amount equivalent to the price of the mobile set.
The OP No.1 shall further be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 7000/- (seven thousand rupees) only for complainant’s harassment and mental agony.
The OP No. 2 shall act as linking chain in between the service Centre and the manufacturer OR company, if the Service Centre so requires. The OP No.1 shall also be liable to act as a medium of communication in between the manufacturer/ company and the complainant also as and when necessary.The OP No.1 shall thus be liable to extend every co-operation both to the Service Centre and the complainant in this regard.
The entire exercise shall be completed within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order, failing with the amount so awarded shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization in full. There will be no other cost.
In case of default, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution through this Forum as per provision of law.
Let a plain copies of this judgment/final order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
The case is thus disposed of.
