Date of filing: 09.11.2016 Date of disposal: 25.9.2017
Complainant: Debasish Paul, S/o. Ram Chandra Paul, resident of Indrakanan (S), PO: Sripally, PS: Burdwan Sadar, Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 103.
Opposite Party: 1. Micromax Informatics Ltd., represented by its Director, having its office at 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi, Pin – 110 028.
2. M/s. Nexgen Services, represented by its Manager, having their office at 1st Floor, Shibram Supermarket, B.C. Road, Kalitala, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
3. Ishika Electronics, Represented by its Proprietor, having its office at B. C. Road, Mayabazar, Opposite of C.M.S. High School, PS: Burdwan, PO. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present:
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Abhijit Dutta Chowdhury (ex parte).
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2&3: None (ex parte).
J U D G M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Ops have sold him a defective mobile phone and the same problems have not been solved by the Ops.
The brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a phone bearing model No. Micromax X 697, manufactured by the OP-1, bearing IMEI No. 911471651959701 on 18.5.2016 from the OP-3 by paying a consideration amount of Rs. 1500=00. The complainant submits that from the very beginning of using the same he faced some problems regarding his phone like the back light of the desktop of the phone always became on mode, speaker was not working properly etc. As such the complainant rushed before the OP-2 (service centre) for repairing on 12.6.2016 and the OP-2 issued a job sheet bearing No. 061624006741 on the same day and after a week they delivered the phone to the complainant. But within a few days again begun to face similar problems with the said phone. As such the complainant again visited the OP-2 and they again received the phone from the complainant and issued another job sheet bearing No. 061623843849 on 20.6.2016. Thereafter the phone was handed over to the complainant but the problem was not solved. Then again the complainant deposited the said phone before the OP-2 and issued another job sheet bearing No. 2121960071624363898 on 13.7.2016. But no relief has been received by the complainant and the problems of the phone are continuing till date. By getting no other alternative knocked the door of Consumer Affairs Department, Burdwan but this time also got no relief and as such the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer for directing the OP-1&2 to replace the mobile or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 1500=00 along with interest, to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000=00 towards mental pain and harassment and to pay Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost and other expenses.
After admitting the case notices were served upon the Ops. Though the OP-1 appeared through his lawyer but the OP-1 did not contest the case by filing written version. The OP-2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed any written version to contest the case. So the case is heard ex parte against all the Ops.
As the case is filed alleging manufacturing defect of one mobile phone, so to ascertain the same the complainant filed an application for appointment of an expert and the application was registered as M.A. Case being No. 47/2017. The said M.A. was disposed of on 16.5.2017 in favour of the complainant and one mobile expert was appointed to examine the said mobile set and to submit a report before this ld. Forum. The said expert submitted his report on 28.7.2017.
After examining the said mobile set the expert has opined that “After thorough inspection I observed the following opinion in respect of the question put in the petition are as follows:
- Yes this mobile is defected.
- Yes this defect, is manufacturing defect.
- The defect cannot be removed by way of repairing.”
Decision with Reasons:
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone and he faced some problems from the very beginning of using the same after purchase. So he went to the OP-2 –Service Centre for its repairing for three times but the problems were not solved. Thereafter he lodged a complaint with the Consumer Affairs Department but no fruitful result came there. So he was compelled to file this complaint.
As it is a case of manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant in his petition of complaint so he prayed for appointment of an expert in the field of mobile to prove his case. Thereafter a mobile expert was appointed as per his application and the expert opined that the said mobile set is defective one and the said defect is manufacturing defect and the said defect cannot be removed by way of repairing.
As the Ops have neither appeared nor filed written version to contest the case, the matter was heard ex parte. So the opinion of the expert was not challenged by the Ops by putting him questionnaire regarding his opinion. So the expert opinion has got its finality.
As the allegation of the complainant is that his mobile set has manufacturing defect, so expert opinion is very much necessary which goes in favour of the complainant. According to the expert opinion the complainant has proved his allegation and the complaint be allowed.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 196/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte with cost against the OP-1&3 and the case is dismissed ex parte against the OP-2 with a direction to the OP-1&3 to replace the said mobile set with the same Model and same Mobile Company within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the OP-1&3 are directed to pay Rs. 1,500=00 as the price of the Mobile set along with Rs. 500=00 as compensation and Rs. 500=00 as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the total awarded amount (Rs. 1500+Rs. 500+ Rs. 500) will carry penal interest @8% per annum till its realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
