Order No. 39 dt. 24.03.2017   

           This is an application u/s. 12 of C.P. Act filed by the petitioner, Mr. Swapan Singha claiming the refund of of Rs. 5999/- or to replace a new handset mobile from the O.P. Company and Rs.30000/- for mental agony and harassment.  

          The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner purchased one mobile handset from Micromax Company Ltd. being No. IMEI 9111410503844&911141055384481 on 27.08.2012 at Rs. 5999/- and since his purchase the handset is not working properly. She went to this Service Centre several times to repair the handset within the warranty period but the defect is not removed. Thereafter, the complainant sent notice to the O.Ps on 06.11.2012 but no steps taken by the Intech Solution or the Micromax Company.  Thereafter, the O.P. No.2 disclosed that the set is not repairable and the handset suffers from manufacturing defect.  So he filed this case before this Forum as reliefs prayed for.

          Summons sent upon O.P. No.1 by registered post but non appeared for O.P. No.1. So the suit run ex parte against O.P. No.1.      

O.P. No.2 though appeared filed W/S denying the allegation contending inter alia that the petitioner did not receive the mobile set from his shop though it was working but the O.P. No.2 is also not appeared on the date of hearing and no steps taken on that date of hearing and date fixed for ex parte hearing. So the suit is heard ex parte.     

          The petitioner is examined as P.W.-1 and the cash receipt dt. 27.08.2012 is marked Ext. -1, Service Jot Sheet of Intech Solution is marked Ext.-2, Complaint letter sent by the petitioner to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 on 06.11.2012 is marked Ext.-3 and Postal Receipt is marked Ext.-4.             

:DECISION WITH REASONS:

          From the documents and evidence it is crystal clear that the petitioner purchased the said mobile handset on 27.08.2012 at Rs. 5999/- and the handset is not working properly. So he asked to the service provider who is authorized by the O.P. Company No.1 and he received the said mobile phone within the warranty period. The petitioner also sent notice to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 on 06.11.2012 but in spite of that no relief given to the petitioner. The corroboration of this fact established the grievance and the petititioner is entitled to get an order when the said mobile phone is not working properly.

          In the result, the case succeeds.        

Proper fee paid.                                             

Hence,                         ordered

that Malda D.F.C Case No. 53/2014 is hereby allowed as ex parte.  

          O.Ps. are directed to replace a new mobile set to the petitioner or to refund Rs. 6999/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order failing which the amount will carry interest @ Rs. 6% p.a. till realization and the petitioner is at liberty to put the decree in execution.

          Let a copy of the order be given to the petitioner free of cost and the order must sent to the O.P. Nos 1& 2 by registered post.