Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.05.2016
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 full price of said mobile at the time of purchase along with interest @ 18% from 27.09.2011 till full and final payment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- ( Rs. Thirty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has stated in his complaint petition that he purchased a LG 510 mobile hand set on 27.09.2011 from opposite party no. 3 after paying Rs. 7,402/- vide annexure – 1.
The complainant has further asserted that he has operated the mobile hand set according to user guide but he found that the said mobile was not functioning properly and satisfactorily, so he immediately lodged complaint with the opposite party no. 3 but no action was taken by Smart Mobile Centre (opposite party no. 3) and instead of redressing his grievance directed him to approach service centre. It is further case of the complainant that thereafter he approached the service centre at Patna. After examining the defect the engineer of service centre issued a job sheet. The mobile hand set was thereafter handed over to the complainant by the service centre but after trial the complainant found that the mobile was still not functioning properly.
The complainant again on Dec 2011 approached the service centre at Patna for rectifying the defects but for no result.
It is further case of the complainant that he approached the in charge of service centre and requested him to take appropriate steps from his own level for redressing the grievance of the complainant. Then the complainant was directed to leave the mobile set at service centre for 2 or 3 days so that the defects may be removed (annexure – 2) but after rectification the mobile set was again handed over to the complainant but for no result and the complainant has to suffer much for the same.
Neither any Vakalatnama nor any written statement has been filed on behalf of opposite parties.
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. As the opposite parties have neither filed Vakalatnama nor any written statement this case was heard exparte.
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a mobile hand set from opposite party no. 3 after paying Rs. 7,402/- vide annexure – 1. As there is no counter version of opposite party and the aforesaid facts have been asserted on affidavit by the complainant we have no option but to accept the aforesaid fact in toto. Thus we find and hold that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for such deficiency.
Hence we direct opposite party no. 3 to refund the price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs. 7,402/- to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 3 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 3 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Opposite party no. 3 will have liberty to realize the aforesaid amount in due proportion from other opposite parties.
The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile hand set to opposite party no. 3 at the time of receiving the price of mobile hand set.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
