In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I
CDF-1/Case no.264/2006
Sri A.K. Pasari,
14, Theatre Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71 ……. Complainant
vs.
Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,
P-273, Manicktola Main Road,
Kankurgachi, Kolkata-54 and others …… Opposite parties
Present : Sri A.K. Das, President
Sri L.K. Banerjee, Member
Smt. J. Saha, Member
Order no. 9 dt.13.05.2008
Petitioner has moved this forum for a relief directing the o.p. to refund the price of the mobile hand set purchased from o,.p. no.1 manufactured by o.p. no.3 Nokia Pvt. Ltd. as the set was not giving service from the date of purchase.
It is submitted in the petition of complaint that petitioner purchased this mobile hand set Nokia 6230 model serial no.354327001590313 and battery VL-5C serial no.0670400382066/L 38742 B 019931 from o.p. no.1 on 19.11.04, annex-A. Immediate after purchase said mobile set was giving trouble which prevented the petitioner for using the same properly and effectively. Petitioner vide letter dt.30.12.04 lodged complaint to o.p. no.2. O.p. no.2 returned back the mobile set after repair, annex-B. Petitioner found no improvement and wrote letter to o.p. no.2 on 10.1.05 handed over the set to o.p. no.2 who returned it back after repair on 24.2.05. Even then petitioner did not get proper service from the said hand set. Petitioner again wrote to o.p. no.2 on 16.3.05 and 2.6.05 and petitioner made over the hand set for doing the needful and o.p. no.2 again returned back the set replacing the battery for second time. They also changed the inner body. In spite of the set repair the mobile set was not functioning in god condition. Accordingly petitioner set a notice through his advocate on 27.12.05 to o.p. no.3, annex-G claiming refund of the price of the mobile set. O.p. no.3 in reply expressed their willingness to replace the old set with a new one vide letter dt.11.106, annex-H. Petitioner through his advocate intimated the o.p. no.3 that they are not willing to accept the proposal of o.p. no.3. Thereafter no response came from the side of the o.ps. Hence the petitioner was compelled to move this forum for above relief.
Notices of this consumer complaint have been duly served upon the o.ps. None appeared on behalf of o.p. no.1. O.p. nos.2 and 3 appeared and submitted their w/v disputing and denying the allegations of the petitioner.
It is evident from the record since the purchase petitioner was not getting service from his mobile phone for which he had to rush to service centre, o.p. no.2 for repair of the set who did their service but the set was not functioning even after repair. Lastly, petitioner demanded refund back the invoice price but o.p. no.3 remained silent and they proposed for replacement of a new mobile set which the petitioner is not willing to accept. Under the circumstances, it is established that o.p. no.1 sold a defective mobile set which did not provide service to the satisfaction of the petitioner. It was repeatedly sent to o.p. no.2 for service who did their service but it did not set it right. Thereby petitioner demanded the price of the mobile set from the o.ps. finding no other alternative. Considering all aspects of the dispute petitioner is entitled to refund back the price of the mobile set as it did not provide due service to the satisfaction. The consumer complaint accordingly succeeds and it is awarded in the following terms.
O.p. no.3 is directed to refund Rs.15,821/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred twenty one) only along with litigation cost FRs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the petitioner within two months from date, failing which it will carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till realization. Petitioner is directed to return back the old mobile set within that time.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Member Member President
