Date of Filing: 04-05-2017 Date of Final Order: 25-09-2017
Smt. Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.
The brief facts of the present case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant Mr. Kamal Roy, purchased one Micromax S300 against consideration of Rs.3620/- under one Invoice bearing No. 1044, dated 01/08/2015 from Radha Optical, R.N.Road, Coochbehar. In the month of December 2016 the Complainant noticed that the said mobile set was not functioning properly for which the Complainant faced serious troubles and handed over the hand set to the M/S Mahamaya Enterprise i.e. the Authorised Service Centre of Micromax Company at Cooch Behar on 12/12/2016. After that the O.P. service centre did not render proper service and the Complainant did not receive the repaired hand set from the O.P. till date. The Complainant made several contact with the O.P. but all his effort were in vain. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking relief as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The case was filed on 04/05/2017. The OP received the notice from this forum on 26/05/2017 but subsequently, it did not put his appearance inspite of receipt of notice. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. The Complainant filed evidence on affidavit 16/08/17 in support of his claim. On perusal of the complaint petition, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P. any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and is liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully. Heard the argument at a length as advanced by the Complainant and perused the documents along with evidence on affidavit of the complainant.
Point No.1.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile hand set on payment of consideration Rs.3620/-. The Complainant hired service from the O.P., the authorised service provider of Micromax Mobile for repairing his Mobile Hand Set which was not within the warranty period. Thus, in our considered view, the Complainant is a bonafied “Consumer” of the O.P. as per provision of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The complaint value of the present case is far less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 20, 00000/-. The O.P., service centre of Micromax Company is carrying on its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, this Forum has sufficient jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile handset against payment of Rs. 3620/-. The Complainant submitted that he did not get back his Mobile set for which he applied before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Regional Office, Cooch Behar vide complaint No.1101/02/CICC/2017-18 and the mediation was held on 26/04/2017 but no representative from the OP was not come forward to resolve the matter. It is contended that the complainant has not yet received any response from the OP. According to the complainant he is a daily labour for which he prayed for (1) Rs.4200/- as compensation regarding travel expenses for visiting the OP shop and his financial loss as a daily labour. (2) Rs.12, 750/-for compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. There is no proof to establish the fact that the Complainant paid Rs.300/- to the OP because the job sheet (Annexure-1) also revealed that the OP had not even remitted any cost of repair. There is no limitation mentioned in the job sheet for repair of the Mobile set but it can be expected that a customer may suppose to get back his Mobile set after repair within a reasonable time. The OP received the Mobile set on 12/12/2016 and even after the lapse of more than nine months; the Complainant did not get back his Mobile set after repair without any reason assigned by the OP. The OP has no courage either to contest the case or to submit their w/v, if they had anything to say against the case of the Complainant. So, the allegations made by the complainant against the O.P are uncontroverted.
In the result, the Complaint case succeeds in part. Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case CC-58/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed ex-parte against the OP with cost of Rs.1000/-
The OP is directed to hand over the Micromax S300 Mobile set to the Complainant on receipt of charges of spare-parts etc or the cost of the mobile hand set Rs.3260/- which it received through job sheet on 12/12/2016 (Annexure-1) by 45 days from the date of this order. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- for litigation cost to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP shall comply the order by 45 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall have to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the said accumulated amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
