Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of mobile set along with interest @ 18% till its realization.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a mobile of Intex Company, being Intex 6622, after paying Rs. 4,700/- from opposite party no. 1 and 2 on 12.02.2010. After purchasing of the aforesaid mobile vide annexure – 1, the complainant felt that the touch screen is not working and the MMC is not readable. Thereafter he approached service center and submitted his hand set on 29.06.2010 as will appear from annexure – 3.
It is the case of the complainant that the set could not be repaired by opposite parties despite his best effort. It appears that on behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed from Para – 1 of which it appears that opposite party was ready to replace the mobile with new one but the complainant insisted on cost.
It has been further asserted that the company or manufacturer are not liable if the mobile is not properly handled in accordance with the instruction and the complainant mishandled the aforesaid mobile.
From perusal of record it transpires that in this case there was attempt to compromise but it could not be possible.
It appears that opposite party no. 3 has filed written statement while other opposite parties did not appear. From order sheet dated 08.04.2011 it transpires that opposite party no. 1 refused to receive the notice of this forum and as such valid Tamila was declared and opposite party no. 2 did not appeared despite registered notice.
-
From record it appears that the complainant purchased the aforesaid mobile after paying Rs. 4,700/- vide annexure – 1 and as it was not working properly the same was handed over to the service center vide annexure – 2. In annexure – 2 it is mentioned that “ Touch not working and MMC not read”.
Opposite party no. 3 in written statement has stated that the mobile was not functioning properly due to mishandling of the same by the complainant but no such remark had been made by service center in Job Sheet which has been annexed as annexure – 2 by the complainant. In annexure – 2 it is mentioned that touch screen is not working and MMC is not readable it shows that it was manufacturing defect.
The aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties shows that they are jointly and severally responsible for gross deficiency because they did not make serious effort in redressing the grievance of the complainant.
In view of the fact and circumstances we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs. 4,700/- ( Rs. Four Thousand Seven Hundred only ) which he had paid vide annexure – 1 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on Rs. 4,700/- ( Rs. Four Thousand Seven Hundred only ) till its final payment is made.
We further direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 2,000/- ( Rs. Two Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
