DATE OF FILING : 19/03/2015.
DATE OF S/R : 11.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.03.2016.
Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharya, presently
Residing at 30, Onkar Mal Jetia Road,
(Near Sarbamangala Kali Bari),
District Howrah,
PIN 711103. ................................................................................. COMPLAINANT.
1. Micromax,
Netaji Nagar, E Block
P.O. Ganganagar Madhyamgram,
Kolkata WB 700 132
2. Micromax Service centre,
223/3 Mahendra Bhattacharya Road,
Opp. Engineering Institute
(Junior Executive, Govt. of India),
Howrah. 711 104.
3. San Computech Pvt. Ltd,
212, Shakuntala Building,
69, Nehru Place,
New Delhi. 110 019.
4. Ekart Logistics
WS Retail services Pvt. Ltd
1st Floor, No.447/C, 1 Cross,
12 Main, 4 block, koramangala,
Banglore. 560034, Karnataka,….….….….….….….….….….….….….….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
- Complainant, Smt,Chaitali Bhattacharya, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p.s to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs. 1,799/- along with 18% interest, to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant bought one mobile hand set on payment of Rs. 1,799/- on 28.06.2014 from o.p. no. 3 vide Annexures collectively ‘B’, ‘B1’ & ‘B2’. The set was delivered by o.p4 on 30/06/2014. As per the warranty card, the set was covered by one year . But since the day of purchase, just within 6/7 days, complainant found a lot. of continuous problems such as hearing problem, sudden switch off, speaker problem with calling problem with the set which prevented her from using the set in a proper way. As it was within the warranty period vide Annexure B, he informed o.p. no. 2, the authorised service center, for several occasions but they remained silent. Ultimately, on 15/01/2015, she sent a letter vide annexure C to o.p2. It is further stated by her that o.p 2 even asked her to visit their service center to take the replacement benefit. But when she went there, o.p 2 refused do the same. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, she filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. But only o.p no 2 appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against o.p no 2 and ex parte against the rest.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures filed by the complainant and w/v with annexures filed by the o.p no 2 and noted their contents. First of all it is to be mentioned that the mobile set was delivered by o.p no 3 through o.p no 4 which o.p 4 did in time and complainant has no claim from o.p no 4. So, there is no deficiency on the part of o.p no 4. Now, it is to be kept in mind that even after making the full payment of Rs. 1,799/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. She has been deprived of using the set. The overall attitude of o.p nos.1,2,&3 is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.Ps. should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No post sale service has been given by the o.ps1,2&3. in proper time. How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. Moreover, the o.pnos 1&3. have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps.1,2 &3 have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 104 of 2015 ( HDF 104 of 2015 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P nos.1 &3 and on contest against o.p no 2 with cost and dismissed exparte against o.p no 4 without cost.
That the O.P nos.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,799/-, as purchase price of the mobile set, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.3,299 /- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is also directed to return the mobile set lying in her custody after receiving the awarded amount.
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.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
