C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/95
COMPLAINANT : Miss. Radha Rani Hangsha
S/o Late Bishnupada Hangsha
Vill. Bannerjee Para,
(Chabichara),
P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Mr. Saikat Saha,
Prop. Giggles, Saha & Co.
S/o Sri Sudhangshu Saha
Vill. Bisweswar Chakraborty Road,
P.O. & P.S.: Nabadwip,
Dist. Nadia, Pin – 741302
2) Manager,
National Telecom Micromax
Service Centre Krishnagar
D.L.Roy Road,
Beledanga Bazar, Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
Pin - 741101
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th March, 2012
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile set from the OP No. 1 at a price of Rs. 2450/- on 05.08.11. At the time of purchase, the OP No. 1 gave warranty to the extent that within one year it would be repaired or returned or exchanged free of cost in case of any defect. As per that warranty, he went to the OP No. 1 when the mobile set was not working properly who advised him to meet the OP No. 2 as he was the service centre. Accordingly, he went to the OP No. 2 and handed over the mobile set to him to repair the same. After some days he met the OP No. 2 who neither repaired the mobile set, nor handed over it to him, rather misbehaved with him. Even he met the OP No. 1 who also did not help him in this matter, rather misbehaved with him. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1 has filed a written version in this, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that the complainant purchased a mobile set from him and at the time of purchase he declared that the warranty was given only for six months in respect of battery, charger and headset and also one year in respect of handset. He also stated that in case of any defect the complainant would have to contact directly with the service centre for repairing the same. Everything was disclosed on the backside of the invoice-cum-receipt issued by him. He further submits that this complainant never met him or asked him to change the mobile set. So no question of misbehave with him, does arise. Therefore, the complainant has no cause of action to implead him in this case. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed against him.
Notice was served upon the OP No. 2, who received the same but did not appear this Forum to contest this case by filing any written version.
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 along with the written version filed by the OP No. 1 and the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant purchased one mobile set from the OP No. 1 at a price of Rs. 2450/- on 05.08.11. On the reverse of the receipt issued by the OP No. 1 it is stated that in case of problem the purchaser is to contact with the service centre directly and warranty disclosed battery, charger and headset for six months and only handset for one year. From the petition of complaint and the documents it is available that he met the OP No. 2 on 13.09.11 for repair of the mobile set with the problem of ‘power switches off 4403 audio no incoming audio’. Complainant’s main allegation is that the OP No. 2 did not repair the mobile set as per the warranty. Rather he refused to hand over the set to him when he met the OP No. 2. He also submits that he met the OP No. 1 initially and lately also who declined to take any step in this matter. Now the question is whether the OP No. 1 has any liability in this matter. OP No. 1 is the seller and OP No. 2 is the authorized service centre of the mobile set. The OP No. 1 cannot wash out his hands after selling the mobile set to the customer. It is his duty also to give proper service to the purchaser when the purchaser intimated him about the nonfunctioning and defect of the mobile set. He did not take any step in this matter. Rather he only advised the complainant to meet the OP No. 2. It is evident that the OP No. 2 neither repaired the mobile set nor handed over it to the complainant. He has not even contested this case.
In view of the above discussions our considered view is that both the OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly liable to repair the mobile set which they have not acted. So we find gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 & 2. We do further hold that 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/11/95 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP No. 1 and exparte against the OP No. 2. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,450/- (price of the mobile set) along with compensation of Rs. 500/- for mental harassment plus litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, in total Rs. 3,450/-. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to make payment of the decretal amount to the 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.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
