Smt. Sangita Paul, Member

This is a case filed by Sri. Dipu Moondal, S/o. Sahadev Mondal of Village – Mahamaya, P.O.-Khari, P.S. –Raydighi, District- South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 349  
 against Das Care (RV Solution Pvt. Ltd.) and RV Solution Pvt. Ltd. With a prayer for directing OPS No. 1 & 2 to credit the entire amount of Rs.5,999/- in favour of the complainant, the amount which has been paid by the complainant for purchasing the phone with accumulated interest along with imposing such further cost or compensation of the amount as your Honour deems justified and proper, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only.

OP No.1 is Das Care (RV Solution Pvt. Ltd.)  The address is Manimala Apartment, Kalpukur, Arup Bhadra Sarani, P.S. – Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.  

OP No.2 is RV Solution Pvt. Ltd.  The address is L-11/373 Ground Floor near Vishal Mega Mark and KPS School, Mahipalpur, Delhi, Pin -110 037.

The complainant, by filing this case states that he purchased one Airtel One Touch Mobile Handset being No.XEO6257/ Alcatel. H.S.N. 85171290355720090146220 through online Flipkart Service and the date of transaction 15.05.2019. 

The complainant used the phone for few months.  The complainant faced problem at the time of charging the phone.  On 25.11.2019, the complainant approached the OP No.1 who is the service provider of the said handset.  The problem arose within the warrantee period.  After inspecting the said handset, the OP No.1 asked the complainant to submit the said handset to them.  So that they could detect the problem and repair the same within a week. 

After one week the OP No.1 told the complainant that there has been some error in SUB-PCB and it would need more time, again after one week the OP No.1 told the complainant that the phone has been sent to their registered main office at Delhi a time of fifteen days was taken.  Then the OP illegally demanded a sum of Rs.4,205/- from the complainant.  The complainant informed that there is no problem in the LCD Screen of the said handset; the mobile phone was deposited by the complainant within the warrantee period.  The phone was returned to the complainant on 07.01.2020 in dilapidated condition.   The Op No.1 gave a receipt to the complainant while the complainant deposited the phone to the OP.  There was no problem except charging. 

That the cause of action arose on 15.05.2019 and it is still continuing. 

The complainant prays for directing the OP to credit the entire amount of Rs.5,999/- in favour of the complainant, the amount which has been paid by the complainant for purchasing the phone with accumulated interest along with cost, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only.

The OP No.1 in the written version states that the said application is not maintainable in the eye of law, this application should be rejected.  The application is merely a waste of precious time.  The same was initiated with a view to harass the OP. 

The complaint was lodged for service of mobile phone.

The complainant is not a consumer.  OP No.1 never showed the mobile phone to the complainant.

OP No.1 also submits that OP no.1 has nothing to do with the inherent defects of the mobile and therefore was not liable to be alleged.  The complainant was unable to contact with the manufacturer and vending agency.  The complainant was aware of the inherent defects.  The OP No.1 merely acted as an agent to the manufacturer. 

OP No.1 denies and disputes all the allegations of the complainant.  The complainant thought that it was a problem of charging but the problem was due to burnt LCD.  Even in the warrantee / guarantee period, the replacement of burnt LCD was not covered by the company.

It was not a fact that the OP demanded Rs.4,205/- from the complainant. 

OP No.1 also states that the complainant was not harassed and deprived by the OP.   The OP did not spent time in mental agony.  So he is not entitled to any compensation.  The complainant is not entitled to any other relief whatsoever.    On the other hand, OP No.1 should be compensated for filing such a false complaint. 

The OP also prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost. 

The complaint was filed on 29.12.2020.  On 19.01.2021, the instant case was admitted.  On 26.02.2021 OP No.1 appears.  On 30.03.2021 no W/V was filed by OP No.1.  On 01.04.2021, OP No.1 appeared.  OP No.1 filed ‘Vakalatnama’ along with W/V.  OP No.1 prayed for acceptance of W/V.  Ld. Lawyer of complainant raised no objection.  The W/V filed by the OP No.1 was accepted.  And order of ex-parte, passed on 30.03.2021 was set aside.  On 31.12.2021, the complainant files a petition for the expunging the name of OP No.2.  On 25.02.2022, the name of Op No.2 was expunged.  On 06.09.2022, the OP No.1 files BNA.  On 13.02.2023 OP took no steps and was found on repeated calls.  Argument of Ld. Advocates for the complainant was heard and the complainant also files BNA.  Accordingly, we proceed for giving judgement. 

Points for consideration :-

1. Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

Point No.1  :- 

On perusal of documents and records, it appears that the complainant bought one “Airtel One Touch Mobile Handset” being handset No.XF06257/Airtel, HSN85171290355720090146220 through online Flipkart Service and the date of transaction was 15.05.2019.  The model no. is 5099A3VA Atel Mobile.  The complainant bought the phone from Flipkart.  So he is a consumer U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  So, the 1^st point is decided in favour of the complainant .

Point No.2  :- 

            The complainant purchased the mobile phone on 15.05.2019.  The Model No. is 5099A3VA Atel Mobile.  The IMEI No. is 355720090146220.  The Mobile started giving problem within the warrantee period.  The Mobile Phone was not working.  There was a problem of charging.  The complainant reported this matter for several times, but with no effect.  The OP is not paying heed to the complainant’s request.  The complainant went to the service provider, Das Care.  They took the complainant’s phone and after some days they send the same for repairing and demanded Rs.4,205/- for burnt LCD.  So, the reason of demanding the money is best known to the OP.  Besides, the phone was within the warranty period but the OP demanded that amount.  The problem of LCD was not covered by the conditions of warrantee. The OP returned the phone on 07.01.2020 in a damaged condition.  The complainant got no proper service from the service provider.  It was due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the OP, that the complainant is deprived of getting proper service from the OP.  The complainant went to the OP’s shop for several times but with no result.  The OP is demanding money from the complainant during the warranty period. The complainant was using the phone.  He noticed no problem in the LCD.  No question of giving Rs.4,205/- arises as repairing charge.  Hence, the 2^nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP. 

Point No.3  :- 

            The complainant is a consumer.  He purchased one Airtel Mobile.  But the mobile started giving problem within few months of purchase.  The complainant went to the OP but his problem was not solved.  The complainant’s mobile phone was not charging properly.  The complainant deposited the same to the service provider.  But they cited another problem.  O.P. never repaired the problem cited by the complainant. The OP told that the LCD was burnt.  It is needed to be replaced.  After inspection, they demanded money.  Due to utter negligence and unfair trade practice of the OP, the complainant suffered loss.  His problem was not solved.  He spent time in mental pain and agony.  Hence, the 3^rd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

            In the result, the complaint case succeeds.   

Hence, it is,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). 

That the OP is directed to pay Rs.5,999/- with 10% simple interest w.e.f. 25.11.2019 till disposal of the case, within 45 days from the date of this order.

That the O.P. is also directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service, within 45 days from the date of this order. 

 That the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)  is to be paid by the O.P. within 45 days from the date of this order. 

That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within 45 days from the date of this order. 

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

That the final order will be available in the following website:www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me

              Sangita Paul

                 Member