West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/58/2016

Sri Chayan Bagchi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Akash Jain (Proprietor) - Opp.Party(s)

Swapan Bhattarcharya

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complainant Case No.58/2016

Sri Chayan  Bagchi, S/o-late Milan Bagchi, Vill-Nutundihi,

P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………………………….Complainant.

 

Vs.

Mr. Akash Jain (Proprietor),

Jain’s (An Exclusive Mobile Shopee), 82, Gole Bazar, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur……………..Opposite Party.

   Order No.9.                                                                                

   dt. 17/08/2016.

                  The case record is put up before us for passing ex parte order.

                  This is a case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                  Complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 8/10/2014 he purchased a mobile set of HTC DESIRE 816, Duel IMEI no.352795062872113 from the shop of the opposite party a consideration of Rs.22,490/- only.  After such purchase, the complainant detected some problem with the said mobile set and on 14/12/2015, the complainant brought the said mobile set to the shop of opposite party and after thorough checking of the set, the opposite party disclosed that there is some problem in SIM card holder slot no.1 and he further disclosed that entire set is otherwise well.  Opposite party assured with he would repair the same and he took a sum of Rs.950/- only as repairing charge from the complainant on that very day.  He also issued a valid receipt to the complainant and asked him to come after two weeks.  After expiry of two weeks, the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party to take his mobile set but the opposite party disclosed that the same was not ready and expressed that he would repair the same very soon. Thereafter the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party on several times to take his mobile set and lastly on 27/2/2016, the opposite party disclosed that the entire mobile set has been damaged at the time of repairing work and requested the complainant to take Rs.8000/- as compensation.  Hearing that the complainant became astonished and he requested the opposite party to refund the entire sale price but the opposite party denied.  It is stated that the opposite party sold the defective mobile set to the complainant and as such the opposite party liable to pay compensation.  Hence this case, praying for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.22,490/- towards the price of that mobile set and an award of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony and an award of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

Contd…………..P/2

                                 

 

                                                                                                     ( 2 )

            Opposite party appeared in this case and filed a written objection but on the date of evidence on 11/8/2016, the opposite party did not turn up for which the case was herd ex parte.  Hence, the ex parte hearing.

            To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief duly supported by affidavit and he was also examined on oath as PW-1. During his evidence three documents were marked as Exhibit- 1 to 3 respectively.  In his evidence, the complainant has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint.  From Exhibit-1, we find that the opposite party purchased the mobile set of HTC DESIRE 816 Duel IMEI no.35279506287211 from the opposite party at a consideration of Rs.22.490/-.  Exhibit-2 goes to show that the opposite party issued this customer’s copy of job sheet for repairing of the mobile set with a remarks SIM Slot no.1 problem.  Exhibit-3 goes to show that it is a lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party. From ext-2, we find that the said handset of HTC mobile was not damaged but there was only scratch on the body of that set and the service engineer reported in the remarks column that there is problem in SIM Slot-1 only.  In his petition of complaint as well as in his written examination–in-chief supported by affidavit,  the complainant has stated that after detecting such problem he  on 14/12/2015 deposited his mobile set to the opposite party and the opposite party assured him that he would repair the same and the opposite party also received Rs.950/- as repairing charge from the complainant.  Finally on 27/2/2016, the opposite party disclosed to the complainant that the entire mobile set of the complainant has been damage at the time of repairing works.   So in view of the said oral evidence of PW-1, the complainant and the documentary evidence, remaining unchallenged, it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.

                                 Hence, it is,

                                                      ORDERED,

                                                                   that the complaint case no.58 /2016 is allowed ex parte with cost against the  opposite party.  Opposite party is directed to refund the sale price of Rs.22,490/- of that mobile set to the complainant and to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

                Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

 

Dictated and Corrected by me

        Sd/-B. Pramanik.                            Sd/- D. Sengupta.                          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

             President                                         Member                                        President

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur