Dt. of filing : 19/11/2019
Dt. of Judgement : 08/02/2021
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member
This is a complaint u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 made by Maya Das, daughter of late Sudhir Chandra Das residing at 18/B, Monohar Pukur Road, Kalighat, Kolkata-700 026 against Infotel Services, 1, Ekdalia Road, Kolkata -700 019 (OP No.1), The Manager, Infotel Services, Ekdalia Road, Kolkata- 700 019 ( OP No.2) and Nokia having its Regional Office at 3F, Tower-II, Millennium City, I.T. Park, Plot No.62, Block DN, Sec-V Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091 (OP No.3) praying for directions upon the Opposite Parties to refund the sum of Rs.2,500/- along with an interest amount of Rs.271 and also Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Facts in Brief :
The Complainant being a senior citizen intended to buy one mobile handset for her personal use and visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1. She was shown a NOKIA BRAND MOBILE by the sales person from an unsealed box and was suggested to purchase the NOKIA handset being reputed company with very good reviews. Although the Complainant liked the handset but still was hesitating to buy the same as the same was from unsealed box but upon the assurance of the sales person to take care for anything wrong and convinced by the goodwill of Opposite Party No.3, Complainant purchased the said mobile handset being No. NOKIA 216 DS RM-1187 Black in colour with IMEI No.354485095766619 for a sum of Rs.2,500/- from Opposite Party No.1 against Invoice No. IS/18-19/1538 dated 15/9/2018. As instructed by the sales person of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had charged the mobile handset for 18 hours before use. But despite charging the same, the battery of the phone significantly decreased on standby mode although the advertisement for the phone was 1020 MAH battery with standby time is upto 576 hours. The Complainant visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 complaining the problem about the said phone which was purchased 48 hours back but Opposite Party No.1 told that they were unable to resolve the battery problem at that point of time and asked to deposit the handset for their observation. But the Complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 either to resolve the problem for which she can wait or to replace the handset as it was bought 48 hours back. As stated in the complaint petition, the Complainant being a senior citizen suffering from various ailments visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 on various occasions with the same request and even she made a representation on 27/4/2019 to the Manager of Opposite Party No.1 who is also Opposite Party No.2 in the instant petition of complaint but that ended with no fruitful result as stated by the Complainant. Finally the Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 10/8/2014 upon which one of the representative of Nokia i.e. Opposite Party No.3 contacted the Complainant and asked to visit the said shop along with mobile handset and challan for replacement. Since the Complainant have requested prior to legal notice to the Opposite Parties, now she requested for the refund of money which the Opposite Parties refused. Thus being aggrieved the Complainant filed this complaint petition alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
Notices were served to all the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 appeared on 30/12/2019 through their authorized representative but thereafter the Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 did not appear nor they filed any written version for contesting this case and finally the matter was heard ex-parte against them. Opposite Party No.3 did not contest this case by filing written version and so the matter was heard ex-parte against them also. In order to reiterate her case, Complainant filed a petition praying to treat complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief. BNA is also filed by the Complainant.
Main Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point (i)
On perusal of the record and the documents annexed therein it appears that as per Invoice no. IS/18-19/1538 dated 15/9/2018 issued by Opposite Party No.1, Complainant had purchased one mobile handset NOKIA 216 DS RM-1187 in Black with IMEI No.354485095766619. In support of this, Complainant has also filed original Invoice, as such there is no doubt that the Complainant is a consumer.
Point (i) Answered accordingly.
Point (ii) & (iii)
On careful scrutiny of the documents in record It appears from the copy of the letter that the Complainant after purchasing the mobile handset on 15/9/2018, visited the shop of Opposite Party No.1 within 48 hours and thereafter several times to complain about the disputed mobile handset. A copy of the said letter dated 27/4/2019 supported by postal receipt and track report is also filed by the Complainant wherefrom it appears that she had given a written complaint also to Opposite Party No.2 who is the Manager of Opposite Party No.1 but still the Opposite Parties remained silent. It is also clear from the act of Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2 that although they appeared in this case but did not contest. So it is clearly understood that the Opposite Parties were reluctant. Although stated in the petition of complaint, there is no such evidence filed by the Complainant to justify that Opposite Party No.3 was willing to replace. But since the allegations remained unchallenged and unrebutted, so we are of the view that there was deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties as in today’s life no person will bear the pain after buying a new phone for Rs.2,500/- from hard earned money and facing problem in mobile handset within 48 hours of purchasing and thereafter wasting valuable time for visiting the shop oftenly or sending letters related to complaints about a particular product. Therefore, in our opinion the Complainant is entitled to the relief with a direction upon Opposite Parties to replace the disputed mobile handset as it is already admitted by the Complainant in her petition that Opposite Party No.3 was willing to replace.
As such Point (ii) & (iii) answered accordingly.
Complainant has also prayed for interest of Rs.271/- along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost which in our opinion is exaggerated.
It would be just and proper if we can give a direction upon Opposite Parties to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost justice will be served. Since the Complainant was provided a legal aid from this Commission, the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the Opposite Parties in the Legal Aid Bank Details of this Commission.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/592/2019 and the same is allowed ex-parte against all the Opposite Parties.
Opposite Parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of same model & of same price as mentioned in Invoice no. IS/18-19/1538 dated 15/9/2018 to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, in default the Opposite Parties shall refund the amount of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant within the said period.
Opposite Parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid period.
We also direct the Opposite Parties to deposit Rs.5,000/- litigation cost in the Consumer Legal Aid Bank Details of this Commission within 45 days from the date of this order.
The liabilities of Opposite Parties are jointly and severally. Complainant is directed to return back the disputed phone to the Opposite Parties against replacement of new phone or refund as directed above in the order.
