West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/94/2018

Ms Debjani Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIONEE HO, SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Dec 2020

ORDER

Petitioners case is that she purchased one Gionee made mobile Hand set being model No. S6 pro Gold with valuable consideration of Rs. 19,229/- (Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine only) in cash from OP No. 3, Punya Enterprise on 11/10/2017. Product Warranty Card and Bill Cash memo to that effect of sale-purchase were issued, but since after the next date of purchase the said mobile set was not charging and for that reason the complainant/petitioner rushed to the OP No. 3, from where the product was purchased and it was returned to the petitioner after one month while the same was retained for repairing. After few days the same charging problem again arose and then the petitioner was advised to go to the OP No. 4, which is the authorized servicing centre of OP Nos. 1 and 2. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that OP No. 4 detected and intimated to the petitioner that the said Hand Set having defect in socket where the Sim cards are being placed and defects were also in charging system and in the Mother Board also and to that effect document has been annexed in this case.

                        OP No. 4 then returned the Hand Set after servicing and the hand set only started in operation but was not functioning or working after being started in each time. It was suffering from charging problem and was getting extra-abnormal heat which might cause explosion at any moment due to that heat, hence, this case with the  allegation that the said purchased set of OP company has been suffering from manufacturing defect since 1^st day of its purchase and accordingly the complainant has prayed for return of the value of Handset amounting Rs. 19,229/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, as well as litigation cost of Rs. 12,000/- and  for travelling expense of Rs. 5000/- totaling a sum of Rs. 86229/-.

                        In this case none of the opposite party has contested and it appears that by virtue of order No. 5 and 11 respectively dt. 31/01/2019 and 06/09/2019, the case has been running exparte against the OP No.s 3 and 4 and that OP Nos. 1 and 2 also as after service of notices they none have appeared.

                       The complainant/petitioner filed some documents which are Annexures ‘A’ to ‘E’. The complainant filed affidavit-in-chief as evidence from her part but no written notes on argument is filed as she herself conducted her case. Hd. the complainant/petitioner.

                        Now, for coming to a conclusion as regards the merit of the case, the following issues are framed.

                                                         Points for determination/Issues

1.  Is the case maintainable?
2. Has there been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?

  Decision with reasons

Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 

All the above three (3) issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience of consideration.

                         Firstly, we find that the case has been initiated within the statutory period of limitation and the allegation covered in the complaint touches firmly the fact that complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly the case is maintainable.

                        Now, to evaluate the other two issues, we have gone through the petition of complaint to its each and every line, the affidavit-in-chief and the documentary evidence as produced which are with the record.

                        From the documents tendered by the petitioner it shows that opposite party No. 1, the Gionee Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. Company who is the manufacturer of the said mobile set, purchased by complainant is primarily liable responsible for placing the defective set for the purpose of sale of the same and there is to doubt in it that such a set was sold out by OP No. 3, Punya Enterprise, while the local head office of defective mobile set is it’s Kolkata office, the OP No. 2. The OP No. 4 is the authorized service centre of the mobile set company who failed to render proper service by making its actual repairs. And it is that authorized service centre of the company, OP No. 4 who categorized the defect of Mobile Set in question as the same was suffering from manufacturing defect. Perused the original cash memo of purchase of the mobile set as well as the product Warranty Card. Considering all these we are of the view, that in absence of contra-evidence and documents the complainant by producing the unchallenged testimony has been able to prove her case and it would be just and proper if the complainant is compensated for such deficiency of service done from the part of the OP Nos. 1 to 4.

                        All the issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant but in the following manner.

                        Hence, it is,                                         

                                    O R D E R E D,

that the instant C.F Case No. CC/94/2018 be and same is allowed exparte against all the opposite parties in part with cost.

The opposite parties are hereby asked and directed jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs. 19,229/-(Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine only) i.e. the purchase money paid by complainant as against mobile set S-6 pro gold (Gionee) within 30 days from the date of this order along with interest thereon @ 7% per annum calculating on and from 11/10/2017 i.e. date of purchase of the Mobile Set in question and along with that the Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/-  as compensation, for harassment and mental pain and agony caused to that effect by them to the complainant within said period of 30 days from this date of order failing which the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution.

Let a copy of this final order be given/handed over to the Petitioner and to all the Ops separately by post free of cost at once.

The instant case is thus disposed of.