Date of Filing: 15.02.2017 Date of Final Order: 30.08.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the complainant Sanjib Chakroborty is that on 18-06-2016 he purchased a Canvas Spark O380 Model mobile set of Rs.5,275/- through on-line. Within the warranty period in the said set some problem of switch off & on cropped up for which the Complainant could not use the set properly. The other problem of the said set was charging problem. Facing the above problems the Complainant contacted with the Service Centre, “Mahamaya Enterprise” within the warranty period to sort out the problem of the Hand Set. The Opposite Party advice the Complainant to submit the set with battery. The Complainant deposited the set to the O.P. and the O.P. issued a job sheet in favour of the Complainant and assured that they returned within fifteen days after repairing the defect. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted with the Opposite Party, Service Center but the O.P. told that the set is not repaired and asked the Complainant to come after few days. In this way the O.P harassed the Complainant in various pretext. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the O.P harassed the Complainant by not giving proper service as to the defects in the mobile set and he is facing a lot of problem as because the Complainant fully depended on this set as by using the mobile hand set he used to maintain his livelihood. After making several contact the Complainant failed to receive the set in working condition from the O.P. The Complainant made an application to the A/D CAFBP for redress but all are in vain. Finding no other alternative, he has filed the present case praying for relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The O.P. “Mahamaya Enterprise,” Represented by Mr. Abhijit Saha, Proprietor of “Mahamaya Enterprise,” entered his appearance through his appointed Ld. Adv. Mr. Ajoy Chakroborty and took time to file his written version.
Now, let us discuss the written version of the O.P dated 07-04-2017, wherein it has been stated that the case is not maintainable, Complainant has no right to file the case, no cause of action arose, mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties etc. as a matter of denial of the entitlement of claims of the Complainant and denying/ admitting the matters on record.
It has been admitted that after a long time use of the set, the Complainant brought the set to the O.P complaining “Power does not switch on and battery charging problem”. The O.P. instantly received the same by issuing a Customer Job Card on 11.08.2016.
This answering O.P. further contended that for malafide intention & harassment, the Complainant has brought such false, wild, baseless allegations against this O.P. as because after using a considerable period, the Complainant brought the set to the Opposite Party, Service Centre only for squeezing money. The other contention of the Opposite Party is that, after receiving the complaint from the Complainant this O.P. took initiative and sent the set to the Micromax Company. The O.P. after receiving the set from company within one month asked the Complainant for taking delivery of the set. The Complainant did not receive the old set, as because he wanted to receive a new set that is not possible for this O.P. as because he is only a service provider. The O.P. provided proper service for which it has no deficiency in service.
The further contention of this O.P. is that, as per warranty condition the O.P. is ready to hand over a reconditioned equivalent set to the Complainant. This O.P. also averred that the claim of the Complainant is not legal and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
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 he liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record carefully. Perused the Evidence of the Complainant and the O.P. also documents filed by both the parties also heard the argument of the parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased a Canvas Spark O380 Model mobile set of Micromax Company on payment of Rs.5,275/- through on line on 18.01.2016 not on 18.06.2016 as stated by the Complainant in the complaint petition. The O.P. the Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of Micromax Company. The Complainant hired service from the service provider within warranty period. Thus, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite party.
Point No.2.
The O.P. Mahamaya Enterprise is carrying on business as service centre in this district. Valuation of the case is far less than the prescribed limit of Rs.20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
From the discussion herein before, we transparently find that O.P. in his written versions admitted the prime points of purchase of the mobile set by the Complainant through on-line.
We find that, said set was received by the O.P. being the Service Centre of the Company is not in dispute. The mobile set required repairing and it was to be done by the authorized Service Centre i.e. “Mahamaya Enterprise,” also has been admitted by it. The O.P. received the said hand set and issued a JOB CARD in favour of the Complainant on 11.08.2016 and it appears that the O.P. provided proper service within the warranty period as per its limit.
On perusal the warranty card of the said hand set it appears that the problem cropped up within the warranty period and as such the Complainant is entitled to get proper service from the service provider.
We also perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant which speaks that the Complainant handed over the disputed mobile hand set to the Opposite Party intended to return back the set in working condition but all are in vain. Besides, the O.P. contended that the set was sent to the Company and after returning from the Company this O.P. was willing to hand over the set to the Complainant but the Complainant refused for which it has no deficiency in service.
From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty. The Company is liable to replace the defective set or make return the price of the said goods. It is the duty of the service provider to render proper service to the customer free of cost within the warranty period as per warranty conditions and the service provider has no authority to refund the price of the Mobile set. The O.P. also did not receive the purchased value of the alleged set in question.
Be that as it may, on foregoing discussion, circumstances to the case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we have reason to believe that there is some defect in the mobile hand set as after proper servicing that was not cured properly and only the Company is liable to sort out the problem.
The prayer of the Complainant is to return back the total purchased amount of the disputed hand set with compensation by the O.P. In this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that only being the service provider the O.P. has no liability to return back the cost of the Mobile only the manufacturer/Company is liable to return the price of the set to the Complainant. In the present circumstances the O.P. be directed to deliver reconditioned equivalent set to the Complainant.
It is further pertinent to mention that the alleged set was received by the O.P. on 11.08. 2016 but till filing this case the Complainant did not get any satisfactory service from the Complainant. Thus, for inaction of the O.P. service centre the Complainant faced pecuniary loss as because the Complainant maintained his livelihood by using the said mobile set as such the Complainant must be compensated.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
That the complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs.2,000/-. The O.P. is directed to deliver the Complainant a reconditioned equivalent set must be in workable condition within 30 days alongwith compensation of Rs.3,000/-failure of which the O.P. shall have to pay @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in this regard, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
