West Bengal

Kolkata-III(South)

CC/548/2017

Mr. Paresh Kr. Pal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax HO. - Opp.Party(s)

S. Kr. Dutt.

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
KOLKATA UNIT-III(South),West Bengal
18, Judges Court Road, Kolkata 700027
 
Complaint Case No. CC/548/2017
 
1. Mr. Paresh Kr. Pal.
208/K/7 Raja ram mohan Roy Rd, kolkata-700008.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Micromax HO.
90B Sector-18 Haryana/Gurgaon-122015Netaji Nagar E BlockP.S. & Vill Madyamgram Kolkata-132.
2. FIRST SERVE
76/69 DH ROAD KOLKATA,P.S.-THAKURPUKUR.
3. RG CELLULARS PVT LTD
54, BALLYGAUNGE PLACE,P.S.-GARIAHAT,KOLKATA-700029.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Ayan Sinha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 17 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Judgment : Dt.17.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Mr. Paresh Kumar Pal, 208/K/7 Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 008 against Micromax HO, 90B Sector-18,Haryana/Gurgaon-122 015; Netaji Nagar E Block, P.S. & Vill-Madhyamgram, Kolkata-700 132, OP No.1, First Serve, 76/69 DH Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata, OP No.2 and RG Cellulars Pvt. Ltd., 54, Ballygunge Place , P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, OP No.3 praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund the cost of mobile Rs.6,200 with 10% interest and for compensation Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant Mr. Paresh Kr. Pal purchased a mobile (Model Q 4251 IMEI) after paying Rs.6,200/- which showed problem in network connectivity immediately after that he changed the SIM three times but the problem remained persisting as there was examination of Complainant’s son there took place delay in making complain to the consumer helpline. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP did not contest the case so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

Complainant has filed Xerox copy of the tax invoice which reveals that Complainant paid Rs.6,200/- to the OP R.G.Cellular Pvt. Ltd. Since the allegation remained unrebutted and unchallenged, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to the relief of refund of Rs.6,200/- which is the cost of the mobile. Since Complainant has not stated as to where the mobile is lying with, it would be proper to direct the Complainant to hand over the mobile set to the OP after receiving the amount.

         Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for litigation cost. Unless the grounds for compensation are mentioned, we are of the view that compensation cannot be allowed.

Hence,

ordered

           CC/548/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.6,200/- to the Complainant within two months of this order, after the mobile set is surrendered.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Balaka Chatterjee]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ayan Sinha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.