Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile hand set from the OP/Eastern Logica Infoway Limited on 23-07-2013 at a price of Rs.14,700/-.

          The specific case of the complainant is that while he noticed some defects in his mobile set and on 09-08-2013 he contacted the consumer care centre to whom narrated the whole problem in connection with the defect of the handset which was not at all fit to be used as a phone.  Accordingly, the set was sent to service centre, but no remedy was done by them.  So, the complainant again on 28-10-2013 approached to the Service Centre and handed over the phone to them.  It is also stated by the complainant that though the IEMI number of the set was changed, by the service centre but problem remained and the complainant was not been able to use the handset anymore.

          Being aggrieved, the complainant took up the matter with the Service Centre on 07-12-2013 and also requested them to look into the matter.  But ultimately the hand set was returned to the complainant by the Service Centre who asked him to contact the company directly.

          It is contended by the complainant that on many occasions he took up the matter with the OP but without any result.  So, the complainant sent final reminder vide registered post to the OP/Company on 28-01-2014 and though they responded but the defect of the hand set was not restored and it was not in a operative condition. 

          Finding no service of the hand set being repaired by the OP, the complainants gave up all hopes of receiving service from the OP in spite of its warranty period which is valid up to 23-07-2014 and was confirmed that OP sold the defective mobile handset to the complainant with warranty and adopted deceptive practice and thus they are accountable and responsible for their defective set being sold to the complainant.

          Hence, this case.

          Fact remains that summon was sent by Regd. Post with A/D/Speed Post upon the OP which was served, what is evident from the Postal Internet track Report, but the OP did not appear to contest this case.  So, the present complaint case is heard ex parte.

Decision with Reasons

In this case relying upon the fact as disclosed in the complaint and unchallenged testimony of the complainant and also considering the argument as advanced by the complainant and also corroborative receipt/document, it is evident that the complainant purchased one Mobile handset from M/s. Easternj Logica Infoway Ltd.  Electronic Mall, 6, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072 vide its receipt Bill No.EL14/V/000575 dated 23-07-2013 on payment of Rs.14,700/- with a warranty period for one year having IEMI number 911319450002862.

          Fact remains that the complainant made a complaint on 09-08-2013 with the OP for repair of his defective Mobile handset which was covered under warranty period.  Accordingly, as per complaint, the Customer Care Service has sent the handset to the Service Centre who won’t be able to repair the defect of the handset and returned with changed IEMI number 9113194500925200. Ultimately, the complainant contacted with the OP/Seller and asked them to refund the money of the mobile handset finding it difficult to be repaired by the service centre by changing also its IEMI No.9113194500925200.

          It is a fact that the complainant purchased the mobile handset from the OP on 23-07-2013.  It is also a fact that the complainant made a complaint on 0-9-08-2013 about the defect of the handset and though it was sent to the Service Centre but was not defect free and the complainant on several occasions tried to contact with the OP who even did not pay any heed regarding its services of the mobile handset though it covers warranty period and finding no alternative, the complainant has prayed before the Ld. Forum for relief.  But in spite of sending notice, the OP did not appear before the Forum and submitted their version, contested the case.   Under this circumstances, it is invariably clear that the OP/Seller was generally reluctant to render services to the consumer after the sale of the mobile handsets even during the warranty period.  So, the consumers are being harassed by such unethical attitude of the seller who only grab the money of the consumer and ignores the responsibility after sale of substandard material by adopting deceptive practices.

          In this case it is an established fact that in spite of having warrantee period of the Mobile handset which was purchased from the OP/seller and after few days noticed defects of the mobile set for which the complainant made a complaint before the customer care who sent the mobile sent to the Service Centre for repair of its defect, but ultimately the set was not defect free and the complainant on several occasions contacted to the OP/Seller who did not pay any heed to render services of the defective Mobile Set or to replace a defect free mobile hand set to the customer/complainant since the same material invariably covers warranty period.

          In the above state of affairs we feel that the OP/seller cannot flee by showing neglected attitude as seller/trader when the complainant had suffered from mental agony who purchased the mobile handset from the OP and in spite of having warranty with them who took money and sold the mobile set to the complainant/consumer and also assured best services to be given by them but did not act accordingly which is deficiency of services and unfair activities on their part.

          So, we are inclined to hold that there was deficiency and unfair trade practices on the part of the OP/Seller  as enshrined u/s.2 (1)(g) and ® of the C.P. Act, 1986 for causing hardship, mental agony, mental anxiety and discomfort of the complainant, and, as such, the OP is liable to pay back the money being the cost of the mobile set of Rs.14,700/- to the complainant  along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

          In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).

          The OP is directed to pay back the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.14,700/-(Rupees Fourteen thousand seven hundred only) to the complainant for such negligent act on their part.

          The OP shall have to comply the above order very strictly within 30(thirty) days failing which for each day’s delay and disobedience of Forum’s order OP shall have to pay punitive damages @Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if any reluctant attitude of the OP is found for complying the Forum’s order in that case penal proceedings u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 shall; be initiated against the OP.  But the punitive damages shall be paid to this Forum.

          Complainant to send this copy of the judgment to the OP at once for compliance.