Judgment : Dt.7.9.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Gopal Roy, son of Shri Mantu Roy  residing at Vill-Piali, P.O.-Kalaria, P.S.- Canning, PIN-743363 against Micromax India, having its registered office at Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, PIN Code – 12201, OP No.1, Micromax Mobile having its Main Office, Netaji Nagar, ‘E’ Block, P.O.- Ganganagar, Madhyamgram, Kolkata-700 132, OP No.2, M/s Anannya Infotel, 44, Shayampally, Jadavpur, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.3 and Aanchal Telecom, 81, P.C.Sorcar Sarani, Kolkata-700 019, praying for an order directing upon the O.P. No.1 to refund the sum of Rs.2,100/- being the amount paid by Complainant for purchasing the mobile and a direction to the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service and another Rs.10,000/- for compensation for harassment and mental agony, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the misbehavior and humiliation caused to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant owns a stall at Gariahat Market and carries on business. OP No.1 is a reputed mobile manufacturer. Complainant bought a mobile from OP No.4 having model ‘X 3203’. Complainant noticed black lines on the screen of the mobile. He switched off the mobile. But, after switched on his mobile the problem persisted. One person of the OP attended the Complainant and issued a job sheet in favour of the Complainant on 6.8.2015. At that time the warranty was valid. Complainant made a call to the service centre. But he learnt that the defective part was not available. Complainant became restless for such poor service and suffered much. Service Centre did not repair the mobile and after having no alternative Complainant filed this complaint.

            OPs did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

             Complainant files affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition.

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

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,100/- and compensation and cost.

            In this regard, on perusal of the Xerox copy of tax invoice, it appears that Complainant paid Rs.2,100/- on 11.5.2015 for purchasing the mobile.

            Since the allegation remained unrebutted and unchallenged, Complainant is entitled to the reliefs of refund of the money which he paid.

            Further, in addition to refund the Complainant has prayed for payment of of Rs.45,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.

            In our view such compensation and litigation cost appear to be inflated. However, Complainant is entitled to litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- but not to any compensation.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/125/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte. OP is directed to pay Rs.2,100/- within two months of this order. In addition, OP is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within the same period. The responsibility of OPs is joint and several.