DATE OF FILING                    :     26.08.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      23.12.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31.07.2015.

Shri Subrata Bhattacharya,

son of late S.K. Bhattacharya,

69/3, Lala Babu Shire Road, P.O. Belur Math, P.S. Bally,

District Howrah,

PIN 711202. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

90B, Sector 18,  Gurgaun,

Haryana 122015,

India.

2.         Solution Point ( Micro Max Service Centre ),

58,  G.T. Road, Bally, Howrah,

PIN  711201.

3.         Electro  World,

Prop. Mr. Rahul Jaiswal,

14, Lala Babu Shire Road, P.O. Belur Math,

P.S. Bally, Howrah,

PIN 711202. ………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                      Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.      

                                        F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act filed by the petitioner, Subrata Bhattacharya, praying for a direction upon the o.p. to return his purchase money of Rs. 2,500/- with interest till realization and compensation for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and costs.   

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one mobile phone of Micromax model no. GC333 on payment of a consideration amount of Rs. 2,500/- on 17.7.2014 from o.p.no. 3, Electro World with internet facility and on the vey date of purchase problems started like the ring tone volume as well as speech volume were very less and internet facility could not be availed of. On 18.7.2014 he went to o.p. no. 3 who asked him to go to o.p. no. 2, Solution Point ( Micro Max Service Centre ), but they tried their best but could not rectify the difficulties and also they refused to replace the mobile phone and such acts on the part of the o.ps. harassed the petitioner and also such acts are nothing but deficiency in service on their part.    

3. The o.p. no. 3 contested the case by filing a written version  denying the allegations made against him and submitted that he sells the product of the o.p. no. 1,  Micromax Informatics Ltd., who is the manufacturer and got no liabilities and thus the case against him is liable to be dismissed.

4. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 filed separate written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that the petitioner has not come before the Forum in clean hands and they are always ready and willing to refund the purchase amount and not ready to pay compensation or litigation costs as they offered service to the petitioner.

Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. In   the instant case this Forum scrutinizes the oral as well as documentary evidences filed by the petitioner and also kept in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels of both sides and  also the respective cases of the parties and finds that the petitioner alleged in the case stating that on the date of purchase he found the mobile phone with problem and even after attending the o.p. no. 2, Service Centre, no improvement was made and so he files this case. The o.p. no. 1 being the manufacture of the mobile phone submitted before the Forum that they told the complainant  to get replacement of the mobile phone or to take back the consideration money but he was not ready and willing to file this case.  

6. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are always ready to give back the consideration money. On the above cases of the parties this Forum finds that the case be disposed of on the submission of the o.p. no. 1 itself being manufacturer of the mobile phone. Truely there cannot be any imposition of compensation on the o.ps. as the electronic goods might create problem at any point of time but when the manufacturer is ready to give back the consideration money or replace the mobile set  then imposition of compensation would be too harsh on the party who also approached the Forum for justice.

            In the result, the complaint case succeeds.

            Court fees paid is correct.  

      Hence,

                       O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 472 of 2014 ( HDF 472 of 2014 )  be and the same is allowed on contest against the o.p. no. 1 and dismissed against the rest.   

      The o.p. no. 1 be directed to pay the consideration back to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date of purchase till realization.

      If the o.p. no. 1 does not comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order, the complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

             Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.