Date of filing: 08.12.2016 Date of disposal: 23.04.2019
Complainant: Anirban Halder, S/o. Asok Kr. Halder, resident of 3 No. Dalpatti, Alamganj, Burdwan, PIN – 713 102.
Opposite Party: 1. GIONEE Mobiles, represented by its Director, having its office at 1F, Nandan Bagan St., Manicktala, Khanna, Kolkata, PIN – 700 004.
2. The Director, United Teleservices Ltd., 209 Garifa Main Road, PO: Haltu, PS: Kasba, Kolkata, WB, 700 078.
3. The Director, Eastern Logica Infoway Ltd., having its office at 7, Khairu Place, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 700 072.
4. The Proprietor, “Excell Service”, at 233 G. T. Road, Muchipara, Sripally, beside Ambia Garrage, Burdwan, Pin – 713 103.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: None (ex parte).
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3: Subirlal Mukherjee, Authorized Representative.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 4: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra.
J U D G E M E N T
The complainant Anirban Halder has filed the present claim application u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 against the Ops for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The specific case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set through Flipkart on 02.01.2016 so manufactured by the Op No. 1 & 2 bearing model No. GIONEE M3 Black NA, bearing IMEI No. 865747028957447 and the delivery team of Flipkart delivered the said mobile set to the complainant at his official address after 5 or 6 days. Further complainant came to know from the invoice bearing No. FooHDWB16-6190 which was provided by the delivery team of Flipkart that one Eastern Logica Infoway Ltd., 7 Khairu Place, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 72 i.e. the OP-3 herein have sold the mobile set vide order No. oD404856247965023000 with an amount of Rs. 9,549=00 including delivery charges and the warranty of the said mobile set was for one year.
After that from the month of September, 2016 the complainant began to face several software problems and it sometimes coming into its non-working mode. Then the complainant went to the authorized service centre of OP- 1&2, namely, “Excell Service”, i.e. the OP-4 on 30.09.2016. The OP-4 after receiving the said mobile set issued one job sheet bearing No. GC16900163250 on the same day. Thereafter the complainant on the same day i.e. on 30.009.2016 when he went before the OP-4 service centre for taking back the said mobile set then the official of the OP-4 told the complainant that as the activation date of the warranty was 04.06.2015 so the warranty period of the mobile set has been lapsed on 03.06.2016. accordingly OP-4 charged him Rs. 250=00 towards repairing cost and at the same time OP-4 supplied one internet downloaded copy of the information of warranty of the said mobile set.
Thereafter the complainant requested OP-4 for taking proper step towards solving the dispute but they refused to do so. As such on 03.10.2016 complainant by sending a letter to Ops requesting them for replacing his mobile along with fresh warranty but inspite of receiving the letter the Ops did not take any step to solve the dispute and as such the complainant compelled to knock the door of the Consumer Affairs Department, Burdwan.
Further the complainant alleged that as a bonafide customer of Ops he never done any act of detrimental to the interest of Ops. But on the other hand, OP-1 to 3 supplied one expired mobile set and did not take any measure to solve the dispute. Moreover complainant spent Rs. 250=00 towards repairing the mobile.
The cause of action arose on and from 30.09.2016 when the OP-4 intimated the complainant that the warranty period has been over and it is continuing also as the Ops did not solve the dispute.
The summons was sent to all the Ops and all of them received the same but OP-1&2 did not contest the case by filing their written version. Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte against the OP- 1& 2.
OP- 3 & 4 contested the case by filing their written version.
Both the Ops have denied the allegation as alleged by the complainant against them and further stated that the complainant under Section 12 of the C. P. Act is not at all maintainable as it is manufactured, motivated and baseless and liable to be dismissed.
The specific case of the OP-3 is that they have not denied that the complainant purchased the mobile from them but they denied the same was not delivered by them.
They further stated that since the date of purchasing the said mobile hand set, the complainant never put any claim or reported the matter before them till the date of filing the complaint with allegation that the said mobile phone was not functioning properly and at the same time OP-3 admitted that they are still ready to take all steps with regard to the hand set if require to service or replaces though they are not liable for any problem arise within warranty period.
OP-4 also admitted that they are authorized service centre of GIONEE Mobile under the name and style “Excel Services” having its office at 233, G. T. Road, Muchipara in the town of Bardhaman and accordingly complainant went to the service centre with a problem of his GIONEE Mobile phone and they received the same by issuing a job sheet bearing No. GC16900163259 dated 30.09.2016 and also told the complainant to visit their service centre on the late hour on the same day to receive his mobile set.
The OP further stated that during the period of repairing they checked the IMEI in GIONEE complaints portal to verify the warranty period and at that time it was detected that the warranty period of that mobile set has already been lapsed on 03.06.2016 and thereafter informed the same to the complainant on the same day when he went there to receive the mobile set and also demanded Rs. 250=00 as repairing charges and further received the same from the complainant and further alleged that there is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them as they demanded service charge for repairing the mobile set and the complainant paid the same as per company’s rules and regulations.
On hearing both sides the present Forum has been pleased to frame the following issues:-
- Whether the present claim application maintainable according to law?
- Whether the complainant entitled to get any relief on the allegation that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops?
- To what other relief/reliefs, the complainant is entitled to get as prayed for?
-: Decision with reasons: -
Issue No. 1 :-
This is the vital issue for consideration that as we know that a consumer is only entitled to lodge such type of claim before the Consumer Forum. So let us consider how far the complainant is able to prove that he is a bonafide consumer, as because Ops have never denied that the complainant purchased a mobile set Model No. GIONEE N3 Black NA bearing IMEI No. 865747028957447 from the OP-3 on 02.01.2016 through Flipkart and the complainant himself is also able to produce the documents, i.e., Invoice issued by OP-3 being No. FOOHDWD16-6190 dated 02.01.2016, 01.25 p.m. at a price of Rs. 9549=00.
Under such circumstances it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant is a bonafide consumer under the Ops.
At the same time it should be considered whether present Forum has proper jurisdiction (territorial and pecuniary) to try the present claim application.
At the time of considering this issue it appears that the complainant used to resides at Dal Patti, Alamgaunge, Burdwan, PIN – 713 102 and the OP-4 i.e. the Proprietor, i.e. Excel Service situated at 233, G. T. Road, Muchipara, Sripally, Ambia Garage, Burdwan.
So the complainant as well as OP-4 both is within the jurisdiction of Burdwan and as such the present Forum has no hesitation to try the claim application, besides that the complainant is also able to prove that present forum has proper jurisdiction also.
Accordingly this issue disposed off.
Issue No. 2 :-
This is the issue where the complainant is praying before the Forum by filing a petition under Section 12 of C. P. Act for direction upon the Op- 1 to 3 to replace the mobile set along with fresh warranty as the conducts of Ops show on him are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
So if it is p[roved that the Ops actually done any act on the complainant for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice then the complainant is liable to get relief as per his prayer.
In the instant case it should be considered whether the complainant is at all prove his allegations against Ops by producing documents or not.
It is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile set bearing model No. GIONEE N3 Black NA bearing IMEI No. 865747028957447 through Flipkart on 02.01.2016 and received one invoice bearing No. FOOHDWD16-6190 which shows that the OP-3, i.e. Eastern Logica Infoway Ltd, 7, Khairu Place, Kolkata – 72 sold the said mobile vide order No. 0D404856247965023000, dated 02.01.2016 at a price of Rs. 9549=00 and thereafter the said phone created several problems since the month of September 2016. Then the complainant went to the authorized service centre namely, “Excel Service” i.e., OP-4 on 30.09.2016 and after receiving the said phone OP-4 issued a job sheet dated 30.09.2016 and further he went to the said service centre on the same day for taking back his mobile set from their custody and then he came to know from the OP-4 that the warranty period of the mobile set has been lapsed on 03.06.2016 as the activation date of the warranty was 04.06.2015 and further came to know that as the warranty period is over so he should pay Rs. 250=00 as cost of repairing charge and the complainant paid the said amount to the service centre.
Complainant further alleged that during the period of payment of service charges he further came to know that the activation date of the warranty was on 04.06.2015 and accordingly the warranty period lapsed on 03.06.2016 i.e. when his mobile phone was repaired by OP-4 then it was not under warranty coverage though the complainant purchased the same on 02.01.2016.
So from the conduct of OP-3, who sold the said mobile set to the complainant through Flipkart, i.e. at the time of sale there was no warranty period and if the warranty period was continued then the complainant was not liable to pay any service charges to the OP-4.
Moreover, it also appears from the written version of OP-3 that they never denied the allegation of the complainant as alleged against them and further admitted that they are ready to replace the said mobile phone as well as ready to take proper steps for service of the mobile phone if required. So it is clear that they are not denied the allegation of the complainant against them rather the conducts of the OP-3 shows that there is sufficient deficiency in service and unfair trade practice done upon the complainant by them at the time of purchasing the mobile set and it appears that OP-3 was fully aware the said mobile set was activated on 04.06.2015 but still they guaranteed warranty for one year against the said mobile phone, i.e. when the phone was purchased by the complainant on 02.01.2016, besides that OP-3 admitted in the written version that though he i.e. the Director, Eastern Logica Infoway Ltd. is not responsible to look after in any malfunctioned mobile hand set but still he is ready to take all reasonable afford with regard to the said hand set.
Accordingly this issue disposed off.
Issue No. 3 :-
Regarding this issue it appears that there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer by purchasing a mobile set through Flipkart and it is also not disputed that the said mobile set sold from the shop room of OP No. 3 on 02.01.2016.
At the time of discussion it is also clear that OP No. 3 never denied his responsibility regarding the mobile set but it shows as per the statement of Op-4 that the said phone was sold without any warranty, which is not acceptable according to law.
Under such circumstance the complainant is entitled to get relief as per prayer against the OP-3 who actually sold the mobile to the complainant through Flipkart. But as the mobile phone has already repaired by OP No. 4 against service charge so the question of replace the mobile set along with fresh warranty does not arise at this stage but he is entitled to get some amount from OP No. 3 for his mental pain, agony and harassment along with service charges of RS. 250=00 as well as litigation cost.
All the issues are disposed off in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 210/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-3 with cost and dismissed on contest against the OP-4 without any cost and dismissed ex parte against the OP-1&2 without any cost with a direction to the O.P. No. 3 to pay Rs. 250=00 as service charge to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this award and the O.P. No. 3 is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF,Purba Bardhaman
