DATE OF FILING : 25-05-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 22-12-2011.
Jogendra Singh,
98, Gola Sora, Sarkhel Bagan,
North Ghoshpara, P.O. Bally,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711227.-------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Gitanjali,
Ghoshpara Bazar,
Bally, Howrah,
PIN – 711227.
2. Accel Frontline Service Limited,
12, Lower Rowdon Street ( 1st floor ),
Kolkata – 700020,
West Bengal.
3. Videocon Appliance Ltd.
Mobile Handset, Videocon Mobile Phone Division,
Plot No. 248/1st floor, Udyog Bihar,
Phase – 4, Gurgaon ( Haryana ),
PIN – 122015.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Sri Jagannath Mishra,
Advocate
The opposite party nos. 1, 2& 3 : Ex parte.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying for suitable relief and compensation on the ground of defective goods and deficiency in service.
The complainant had purchased a Videocon Mobile Handset ( Model No. 1604, EMI No. 910001390316310 / 316318 ) on 23-04-2010 from Gitanjali, o.p. no. 1 in the month of December, 2010 there was certain problems regarding charging and in the handset. Therefore, on 06-01-2011 the complainant approached to o.p. no. 2 ( Videocon Services Centre ) for repairing the same. O.P. no. 2 told the complainant that the charging connector being broken it was, in fact, a manufacturing defect. As the manufacturing warranty covers only six months, the complainant was to pay charges. At first the complainant did not agree to pay any amount as the six months’ warranty was only for accessories (battery, charger, handset and data cable). But as the o.p. no. 2 refused to give the service the complainant was compelled to agree to pay the charges and accordingly deposited his mobile set. The complainant went to the o.p. no. 2 several times, but the o.p. no. 2 did not return the set placing the excuse of unavailability of the spare parts. Then on their advice the complainant contacted with o.p. no. 3, but in vain. After expiry of 80 days on 31-03-2011 the complainant sent a complaint to Consumer Forum, New Delhi, through mobile phone and on their advice he sent a registered letter to o.p. no. 3. But o.p. No. 3 kept mum. As per advice of Consumer Forum, New Delhi, he also sent a legal notice to the o.p. no. 3 by registered post on 21-04-2011. On 20-04-2011 the complainant received a message that “ Your Videocon Call No KOL-VG-11-0004111-DW Closed without repairs, PLS, COLLECT ASAP”. Then as per advice of Consumer Forum, New Delhi, the complainant has filed the instant case before this Forum.
The notices were properly served upon the o.ps. Only the proprietor of o.p. no. 1 once appeared in this case and filed his written version. Other o.ps. did not turn up.
On the date of final hearing all o.ps. being absent, so the case was heard ex parte. But o.p. no. 1 filed his written version after receiving the notice from the Forum. In the written version o.p. no. 1 expressed that on request of the complainant the o.p. no. 1 made arrangement for bringing the desired mobile set on payment of advance, as such set was not available in his shop and sold it to the complainant. He also supplied the address of the service centre when the complainant asked for it. O.P. no. 1 does not know any type of servicing, so he can not make any relief to the complainant.
In view of the complaint petition the following points arose for determination :
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get an order ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration.
From the documents there is no doubt that the complainant has purchased one Videocon 1604 mobile set from o.p. no. 1 on 23-04-2010 on payment of Rs. 4,500/-. The o.p. no. 1 has also admitted the fact.
In view of the unchallenged documents we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed ex parte. Moreover, the complainant also filed his affidavit in support of his claim. So we have no doubt that the mobile set in dispute is a defective one.
As the o.p. no. 1 is mere a seller of the mobile set therefore he has nothing to do to give any relief to the complainant. So we are not saddling him with any cost.
By not giving the relief for a long period and keeping mum from their side the o.p. no. 2 and o.p. no. 3 have committed deficiency in service and for the said reason the complainant is entitled to get appropriate order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the complaint case U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended till date is allowed ex parte against the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- and dismissed against the o.p. no. 1.
That the complainant shall get Rs. 4,500/- on account of the price of the mobile set.
The complainant shall also get an award of Rs. 20,000/- from o.ps. no. 2 & 3 on account of causing harassment and mental agony.
That the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of communication failing which the aforesaid amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till full payment.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
