This is a complaint made by Amit Ghosh, son of Sri Santi Ranjan Ghosh, 94A,Raja S.C.Mullick Road, Kolkata-700 047 against Mobile Mania, 52/C, Raja S.C.Mullick Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032, praying for a direction upon the Mobile Mania to refund Rs.250/- being the price of mobile battery of brand BLIEF bearing Model No.X200 purchased on 14.6.2016, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant purchased one mobile battery of the brand BLIEF bearing model No.X200 on 14.6.2016 from the OP at a price of Rs.250/-, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the OP. Cash Memo of that is filed. Complainant as per the instruction of the OP charged the battery at home in switch off condition. But, it was found that the said battery failed to give satisfactory back up and it got exhausted within a few hours, though the phone in which it was fitted was not used, as the Complainant using another mobile phone of brand NOKIA with dual SIM. Complainant on 16.6.2016 in the evening visited the OP and Complaint about its dissatisfactory back up of the battery. Upon hearing the same the OP asked the Complainant to get the mobile checked by technical person. OP again on 16.6.2016 asked the Complainant to use the said battery for few days and Complainant used the said battery. But, there was no satisfactory back up. On 22.6.2016 Complainant visited the OP and asked for refund of the price and OP refused to refund. Thereafter, Complainant sent legal notice and OP neither refunded nor replied the notices. So, Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were issued. But, OP did not make appearance and contest the case. Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief. The prayer was allowed and argument was heard.

Decision with reasons

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            Complainant has submitted brief notes on argument wherein he has reiterated the facts made in the complaint petition.

            On perusal of the argument as well as the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant has compared this battery with the battery of brand Nokia. In our view, such comparison is not justified and the make of all the batteries are different.                                             

            Further, on perusal of the written argument, it appears that Complainant has stated that the performance of the battery was disbursed and back up was not like the battery Complainant used in a Nokia mobile phone. The battery was purchased on 14.6.2016 and after 7/8 days Complainant went to the  shop and asked for refund of the money and OP did not make refund. So, Complainant was compelled to file this case.

            Further, since the allegations of the Complainant remains un-rebutted and un-challenged, it would be proper to give relief to the Complainant to the extent of direction upon the OP to refund the price of battery i.e. Rs.250/- with compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/-.

            Hence,

 ordered

            CC/312/2016 is allowed ex-parte in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.250/-, the price of the battery within two months of this order. In addition, OP is directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.250/- as litigation cost within the same period, in default, the amount shall carry interest of 12% p.a. till realization.