This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 31.03.2017 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar in CC No 85 of 2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent Shamyal Kumar Rudra a BSF personnel of Coochbehar purchased a Mobile handset branded as YU5050 on 05.01.2016 through Amazon.com at a consideration money of Rs. 24,999/-. The mobile handset become defective within six months from the purchase and he reported the matter to Mahamaya Enterprise as service center of YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd. Manufacturer of the mobile set. The service center at first refused to receive the handset on the excuse that it had only one IMEI Number instead of two. After much persuasion the second IMEI number of the set could be furnished. The service center had refused to repair the same after consuming some days and told him that handset was not repairable in their center and it would require to dispatch to Delhi and would require minimum twenty days to get it return after repairment. Thereafter another somedays was exhausted for preparation of job sheets. After preparation of job sheets it was dispatched to YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd. Ultimately on 11.08.2016 he could be confirmed that the YU Televenchers had dispatched the handset towards Mahamaya Service Center on 22.08.2016. He again contacted with Mahamaya Service Center who assured him to deliver it after repairment within two to three days. And when the handset was handed over to him, he found that the handset was still dead and not yet serviceable. So, he registered the instant Consumer Complaint in order to get refund the consideration price of Rs. 24,999/- of the handset and compensation of rupees Rs. 50,000/-. The instant Consumer Case was registered in due course and his notice was sent to the Mahamaya Enterprise as Authorized service center and the manufacturer YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd. By Post. And the notice was served upon them in due course. The YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd.did not contest the case. While Mahamaya Enterprise has contested the case by filing Written Version and denied all the material allegations levelled against them and contended inter-alia that the Complainant came to the service center on 24.06.2016 that is after the expiry of warrantee period of six months since purchased and found the handset was in dead condition. The service center received the said handset by job card and sent it to the head office for the repair. It was also found that the Complainant has brought the said handset with multiple software problems which might have arisen due to mishandling, excessive net surfing and lack of proper knowledge and it was also found that the handset might have some defects due to excessive charging and virus attack. Ld. Forum after hearing the case came into conclusion that neither the O.P No. 2 nor the O.P No. 1 have taken any initiative to repair the said handset and the conduct of O.P Nos. 1 & 2 were nothing but negligent which amounted deficiency of service on their part and both of them were liable for making compensation due to harassment of the Complainant. And for that reason, the O.P No. 2 that is manufacturer of the handset was directed to refund Rs. 24,999/- as price of the Mobile set to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 8% Per-annum from 24.06.2016 till payment is made. And the O.P No. 1 was directed to pay compensation Rs. 5,000/- and O.P No. 2 was also directed to pay Rs. 15.000/- as compensation. And both of them were asked to pay Rs. 5,000/- each as litigation cost to the Complainant. Being aggrieved with the said order the Mahamaya Enterprise that is O.P No. 1 of the case has registered an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission of Calcutta Bench Bearing No A 658 of 2017 and the said appeal was dismissed on 20.09.2018 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the O.P No. 2 of that case YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd. has preferred this appeal with a prayer of condonation of delay and such delay was condoned subject to payment of cost which was paid by the appellant YU Televenchers Pvt. Ltd to the Complainant. Mahamaya Enterprise the proforma respondent of this appeal case in spite of receiving the notice did not contest the appeal. So, the appellant and respondent No. 1 Shyamal Kumar Rudra has participated in the process of hearing the appeal through their Ld. Advocates.

Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that the respondent Shyamal Kumar Rudra a BSF employee has purchased the Mobile set on 05.01.2016 and he has reported about the defect of the said phone to the service center on 24.06.2016. During the course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate of the appellant mentioned that in the original Consumer Complaint Case the notice was not served upon the appellant company in their address and for that reason they were not aware about the existence of the Consumer Complaint against them and for that reason they could not get any opportunity to contest the Consumer dispute by filing the W.V. It is further mentioned on the part of the appellant through Ld. Counsel that the Complainant /customer after the lapse of warrantee period has come to the service center with allegation of defective Mobile set and on examination it was found that due to mishandling and excessive net surfing the android system of the phone was unable to function properly and there was no negligence on the part of the manufacturing company as the mobile set was not have any manufacturing defect at all. Ld. Advocate of the appellant further argued that without proper appreciation of the evidence on record the Ld. Forum has came into a conclusion that both O.P No. 1 & O.P No. 2 had negligent on their part and no proper service was provided to the bonafide consumer. Whereas, the service center and the manufacturing company has taken sufficient effort to repair the said mobile handset but it was so much damaged for its improper use the defect of the same become unrepairable. Ld. Advocate of the respondent countered the argument of the appellant by filing the W.N.A and contended that the defect of the appellant by filing the W.N.A and contended that the disturbance of the phone was detected within the six months of the purchase but due to his engagement in duty he could find time to approach before the service center on 24.06.2016. He, further argued that there is no expert report to substantiate the claim of the appellant that the Mobile set has become defective due to mishandling and over net surfing or overcharging the battery. He further argued that the appellant has received the notice of the Consumer Case in due time but intentionally refused to contest the case but when the order was passed the service center at first preferred the appeal before the State Commission of Calcutta where the case was dismissed and then the appellant become vigil and pursued the appeal here only to take a chance so that anyhow the order of Ld. Forum could be escaped. After, hearing both sides it is found that the Complainant came at first to the service center on 24.06.2016 with allegations of defective handset and harassment was started since then. At first the service center has refused to receive the handset only on the excuse of only one number of IMEI while the Complainant could contact with the manufacturer then the second IMEI Number he could furnish before the service center and thereafter also the avoiding tendency on the part of the service center started. There was inordinate delay on their part in preparation of job card and thereafter it was dispatched to Delhi for repairing the handset which was kept in a warehouse for some days and thereafter it was dispatched towards the service center from Delhi and after completion of a long process ultimately the purchaser could not get any relief neither from the service center nor from the manufacturer. His harassment, pain and mental agony could not be addressed either by the manufacturer or the service center though as per provisions of warrantee clauses they were duty bound to do the same. So, Ld. Forum has rightly observed that there was gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of both the manufacturer and the service center. And for that reason, the Ld. Forum has passed the impugned order and the observation of Ld. Forum appeared to be convincing, appreciable and do not invite any interference in the appellate stage. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be sustainable, trustworthy and Ld. Forum has intended to protect the right of a bonafide consumer and upheld the spirit of the legislators who has enacted the law in order to protect the interest of bonafide consumers. Thus, the appeal appears to be devoid of any merit.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Coochbehar for ready reference.