DATE OF FILING: 01.09.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 01.06.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Samarendra Choudhury has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased the Mobile phone Micromax Canvas Unit 4 Pro Q465 on 05.07.2016 for sum of Rs.7499/- for his own use from O.P.No.1 through “Snapdeal” bearing invoice No.SICEB9/16-17/81138. Immediately after some time of purchase, the phone started malfunctioning and stops responding, the complainant visited the service centre of O.P.No.1. Hence on 14.11.2016 the complainant approached with the complaint to O.P.No.3. The complainant after facing the problem time and again with the above handset approached O.P.No.3 and another authorized service center of O.P.No.1 namely M/s Orissa Enterprises with respective complaints dated 17.04.2017, 09.05.2017, 01.06.2017 and 28.06.2017. The complainant became helpless became he was not able to use the phone and his routine life was suffering and the O.Ps refused to rectify, replace the mobile with new one though the phone is within warranty period. With the harassment given by all O.Ps he is fed up with the hand set and the service provided by the O.Ps. Hence the complainant made written complaints to O.P. No.1 dated 07.06.2017 and 21.07.2017for refund of money/replace with new hand set. Both the letters were addressed to the customer care Office of O.P.No.1.But the O.P.No.1 did not give heed to complainant’s suffering and the written complaints till now. The complainant has also approached to National Consumer Helpline bearing complaint No. 298225 dated and complaint No. 323859 dated 28.06.2017. The complainant got advice from the National Consumer Helpline to pursue against the O.Ps in the court of law as per law. The complainant after suffering a lot complained the same to O.P.No.1 through emails. In all the replies the O.P.No.1 has apology and regretted for their misdeeds and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.3 never tried to resolve the issue by replacing the mobile set with new one. The O.P.No.3 also failed to insist the O.P.No.1 that the mobile hand set is a defective piece and not repairable. Now the complainant has completely handicapped without phone and his professional as well as personal work is affecting. The O.P.No.1 sold a defective hand set to the complainant which led him to approach the service centre frequently and they kept the same in the pretext of repair work for at least 70 days in different job sheet numbers affecting the complainant’s interest and daily needs. The complainant each and every time by leaving his urgent and important works compelled to visit the service centre for the fault of the O.Ps. Again on 02.08.2017 the complainant has delivered the hand set to O.P.No.3 with the problem reported as “4101 power does not switch on” with remark “set dead”. Inspite of repeated request and complaint by the complainant the O.P.No.1 and 3 never replaced the mobile hand set with new one neither returned the cost of the mobile hand set to the complainant. The complainant is completely handicapped without phone and being a lecturer he is most sufferer. Even after visiting the service center on 02.08.2017 the complaint was not entertained by the eservice center and the phone was out of use, hence the complainant sent a legal notice dated 08.08.2017to O.Ps, annexing Xerox copies of retail invoice, complaint dated 07.06.2017 and 21.07.2017, Job sheet dated 02.08.2017. The legal notice sent to the O.Ps has been duly received by them on 09.08.2017 and 11.08.2017 respectively. On receipt of the legal notice also the O.P.No.1, 2 and 3 never replaced the mobile hand set with new one neither returned the costs of the mobile hand set to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the mobile phone with new one because the authorized service center never repaired the same or in alternative refund Rs.7,499/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for harassment, frustration, stress and strain, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant, Rs.25,000/- towards cost of notice filing the complaint and other incidental expenses incurred by the complainant in the best interest of justice.
3. The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and filing written version on the date fixed. But they neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version; as such they set exparte on dated 05.02.2018.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit, documents as per list and written notes of argument.
5. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. During the warranty period the handset was found to be defective. The complainant went to the service center on dated 14.11.2016, 17.04.2017, 09.5.2017, 28.06.2017 of O.P.No.3 but he could not rectify the defect. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but they failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant in to consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the complainant has repeatedly run after the O.P.No.3 for repairing or replacement of his defective mobile set due to problem during warranty/guarantee period but the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally for which he is to be compensated. Further the complainant is also entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Forum and has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as litigation cost in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective mobile set i.e. Rs.7,499/- and Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 12% interest per annum. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 1st June 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
