Sri Kousik Pramanik,
son of Sri Kashinath Pramanik,
Kalgung ( near Kali Ma Mandir ), Midnapore Town,
P.O. Midnapore, P.S. Kotwali,
District Paschim Midnapore,
PIN 721101. ….………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
21/14A Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi 110028.
2. M/S Friends Care,
Bazar Para, Uluberia, near Day Night Nurshing Home,
P.S. Uluberia, District Howrah,
PIN 711 316.
3. Electronic Shoppe,
Sahavarang Bazar, Medinipur, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali,
District Paschim Medinipur,
Pin 721101.………………………………………………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 Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Biswarup Biswas, 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. to refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question amounting to Rs. 4,100/-, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant bought one smart mobile telephone on payment of Rs. 4,100/- on 07.06.2013 from o.p. no. 3 vide Annexure ‘A’. Since the day of purchase, complainant found a continuous problem with regard to the ‘net work & internet facility’ with the set which prevented him from using the internet facility properly. As it was within the warranty period vide Annexure ‘B’, he informed o.p. no. 3 who assured him that with the passage of time, the problem will be solved. But even after four months, the problem persisted. So, on advice of o.p. no. 3, he contacted o.p. no. 2. And surprisingly o.p. no. 3 wanted to get rid of problem uttering some threatening words towards the complainant. However, o.p. no. 2 after checking the set, admitted the problem and kept the set for repairing purpose. After 10 days when he went to o.p. no. 2, he received two messages from o.p. no. 1 on 12.11.2013 and he was asked to collect his set on any working day vide Annexure ‘C’. But it is alleged by him that on and after 15.11.2013 he visited the office of o.p. no. 2 to collect his set on 03.12.2013, 04.12.2013, 07.12.2013, o.p. no. 2 did not deliver his set back and he also made phone calls to customer care nos. but no fruitful result came out. And most surprisingly on 07.12.2013, when he visited o.p. no. 2, he was given totally a different set which was totally a mismatched one. Then complainant sent one e.mail on 08.12.2013 to o.p. no. 1 seeking proper redressal. But o.p. no. 1 gave all assurances but nothing happened and ultimately both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 started behaving in a bad manner with all abusive and threatening words towards the complainant vide e. mails Annexures D, E, F etc. But till date he did not get back his mobile set. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. But they never appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
- 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 and noted its contents. Even after making the full payment of Rs. 4,100/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. He has been deprived of using the set. The overall attitude of o.ps. 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.ps. in proper time. Moreover, one another set has been delivered to the complainant in place of the set which he bought as per his choice. How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. Moreover, the o.p. has 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. 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. 81 of 2014 ( HDF 81 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 4,100/-, 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. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- 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. 7,100/- 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 his custody after receiving the decreetal 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.
