C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/27
COMPLAINANT : Kishor Sarkar
C/o Sri Sukumar Sarkar
Vill. Sebagram,
P.O. Jahangirpur,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
Pin 741103
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Mircomax Informatics Ltd,
9/52/1, Kirti Nagar Ind. Area,
New Delhi – 110015
2) National Telecom
Micromax Service Centre,
Krishnagar, Nadia
3) Siddheswari Telecom
Indira Gandhi Municipal Market
Room No. 13, Dr. D.N. Roy Road,
Krishnagar, Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 29th July, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.03.10 he purchased one mobile set being model No. Micromax X 360 from Siddheswari Telecom (OP No. 3). It is his further case that since purchase the set was not working properly and problems cropped up. So within one year of warranty period on 06.01.11 he deposited the set before the OP No. 2 being the authorized service centre who asked him to take delivery of the same after 10 days. Thereafter, the OP No. 2 asked him to meet him after 20 days as the set was sent to the company for repairing. As per that he met the OP No. 2 who told him that the set could not be repaired. So this complainant came back without taking delivery of the same as the OPs did not repair the same within the warranty period. Therefore, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 2 has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. It is his submission that as per demand of the complainant he repaired the mobile set for the first time. Again the complainant came to him with the submission that the mobile set was not working properly though the warranty period was over. In spite of that he repaired the same and asked the complainant to take delivery of it, but the complainant refused to take delivery of the same. Rather he demanded to supply a new one in lieu of the old one and demanded compensation also. So this case is a harassing one which is liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 3 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the complainant has not made any complaint against him, rather he has made against Micromax company and its service centre, National Telecom. So this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written versions filed by the OP No. 2 & 3 along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the argument advanced by the complainant it is available on record that admittedly this complainant purchased one mobile set being model No. ‘Micromax X 360’ from the OP No. 3 on 30.03.10 at a price of Rs. 3,500/-. There is no denial on the side of the OPs regarding the purchase by the complainant. It is also available from the document filed by the complainant that on 06.01.11, he met the OP No. 2 with this mobile set who issued one customer job card after receipt of the set. From the column ‘Nature of defect reported by customer’ it is available that it had already a display problem headphone sig. on. From the written version filed by the OP No. 2, we find that he repaired the same set as it was within the warranty period and for the second time it was also repaired by him though the warranty period was over. The complainant has not made any whisper that he met to the OP No. 2 for the second time to repair the defect of the mobile set. Even no customer job card was issued by the OP No. 2 for the second time in favour of the complainant. So considering the job card and the petition of complaint, we hold that the set was defective which was received by the OP No. 2 on 06.01.11 for repairing. The OP No. 2 has not filed any document to establish that he repaired the set properly and thereafter he requested the complainant to take delivery of the same. At the time of hearing of this case the OP No. 2 all along submitted before us that the set was ok and he was ready to deliver the same to the complainant, but in course of hearing he did not produce the handset before this Forum nor delivered it to the complainant. Even on the date of argument neither the OP No. 2 nor the OP No. 3 appeared before this Forum to contest this case.
Therefore, in view of the above discussions our considered view is that the defective mobile set was not at all repaired by the OP No. 2 though as per warranty condition it is his duty to repair the same either by him or by his company i.e., the OP No. 1. So we find deficiency in service on the part of this OP No. 2. We do also hold that as the complainant has become able to prove his case, so he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/27 be and the same is decreed exparte against the OP No. 2 & 3. The complainant is entitled to get the price of the handset mobile (model No. Micromax X 360) of Rs. 3,500/- plus compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for harassment caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 500/- i.e., in total Rs. 5,000/-. The OP No. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay this amount to this complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount. The OP No. 1 is expunged at the prayer of the complainant vide order No. 9, dtd. 20.07.11.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
