Date of Filing: 08-02-2017 Date of Final Order: 20-12-2017
Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member
This is an application u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986.
The facts of the case are as follows:
That, one Pankaj Karmakar (hereinafter referred to as Complainant) got a Micromax Mobile set being Model No. Micromax Canvas knight A350 from his friend Bapan Saha who purchased the same on 29-12-2014 through online and there was problem cropped up in charging point of the said mobile. On 15-09-2015 the Complainant deposited the Mobile set with M/s Mahamaya Enterprise, Service Centre of Micromax Co., (hereinafter referred as OP No.1). The O.P No-1 issued a Job Card bearing No. 3141 by registering the problem “CHARGING CONNECTOR BROKEN” and informed the complainant that he has to pay Rs.4,000/- for changing the charging connector and also informed that the company has no responsibility for such type of damage of the charging connector. The complainant was agreed to the proposal of the O.P-No-1 and deposited his mobile to O.P-No-1. In spite of taking long time by the Service Centre, the Complainant did not receive the Mobile set after repair, even after expiry of warranty period. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for Rs.15,700/- as cost of the mobile phone , Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also appropriate amount for cost of litigation.
The case was filed on 08-02-2017. The OP No.1 put its appearance on 03-05-2017 through his Ld. Agent and files w/v denying all allegations of the complaint contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The main contention of the O.P-1 is that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file this case. The OP No.1 pleaded that after repairing the mobile set they informed the complainant to receive the same but, the complainant denied to pay the repairing charges of Rs.4000/- which were agreed upon between the complainant and the OP No.1. The mobile is still under the custody of the OP No.1. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances the complaint of the Complainant should be dismissed.
The OP No.1 neither files the evidence on affidavit nor the written argument. He has not participated in the hearing of argument.
The OP No.2 did not put his appearance in spite of service of notice. Hence, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the OP-No-2.
The Complainant filed evidence on affidavit on 21-06-2017 in support of his claim and also participate the hearing of argument. On perusal of the complaint petition, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant either a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 or a Complainant as defined U/S 2(1)(b)(iv) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service and/or unfair Trade Practice, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Complainant submits that he is the user of the Mobile set which was received as a gift from his friend Bapon Saha and Bapan Saha has made a declaration supporting the case of the Complainant. He contends that the OP-1 received the Mobile set for servicing as the OP-1 is the authorized Service Centre of the Micromax Co. He also submits that he is the consumer. The Ld. Agent for the OP-1 has raised no objection against Point No.1 in his W/V.
The Complainant handed over the Mobile set being Model Micromax Canvas knight A350 to the OP-1 and the OP-1 received the same for repair, being authorized Service Centre of Micromax Mobile. Therefore, the OP-1 has accepted the Complainant as a consumer.
Hence, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
Neither of the parties has argued anything on this point. On going through the materials on record, this Forum finds valid reason to hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The Complainant submitted that he did not get back his Mobile set from the O.P-1 for which he applied before this forum. It is contended that he has not yet received any response from the OPs. It appears from the Annexure-1 &2 that Mr. Bapan Saha, friend of the complainant who gifted the mobile to the complainant purchased the Mobile set through online being handset IMEI No.911357701757041 on 29-12-2014 on payment of Rs.15.700/-. There is no proof to establish the fact that the Complainant paid any amount to the Ops because the job sheet (Annexure-1) also revealed that the OP No.1 had not even received 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 is supposed to get back his Mobile set after repair within a reasonable time. The OP No.1 received the Mobile set on 15-09-2015 and today is 20-12-2017 i.e. even after the lapse of more than two year, the Complainant did not get back his Mobile set after repair without any reason assigned by the OP No.1 or the OP No.2.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service as it did not return the Mobile set even after lapse of more than two year to the Complainant from the date of receipt of the Mobile for repair. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the Mobile set and the Complainant has stated nothing against the OP No.2 regarding its deficiency in service. So, we are of the view that the OP No.2 has no deficiency in service. We think that the OP No.1 may be directed to get back the Mobile set which he received on 15-09-2015 for repair (Annexure-1) from the complainant in a running condition after repair on receipt of charges of parts etc Rs. 4000/- or return back the amount Rs. 11,700/- the cost of the mobile hand set after deducting Rs. 4000/- as repairing charges. (Rs.15,700/- - 4,000/- = 11,700/-) within a period of 45 days to the Complainant and the OP No.1 may also be directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
In the result, the Complaint case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 with cost of Rs.1,000/- and dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 without cost.
The OP No.1 is directed either to hand over the Micromax Canvas knight A350 Mobile set in running condition to the Complainant, which it received through job sheet on 15-09-2015 (Annexure-1) on receipt of Rs. 4000/-charges of spare-parts etc from the complainant or to pay Rs. 11,700/- to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for deficiency in service to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order, failing which O.P-No-1 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 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.
