Date of filing: 02.9.2016 Date of disposal: 12.6.2017
Complainant: Kamal Kumar Khan @ Kamal Khan, S/o. Late Amiya Kumar Khan, resident of Chittaranjan, Street No. 4, Qtrs. No. 12/B CLW, PO: Chittaranjan, PS: Chittaranjan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 331.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. M/s. Cell Link, Represented by its Proprietor, having its office at G. T. Road East, Rambandhu Talab, Opp. Malti Mangal Plaza, Asansol, PS: Asansol (South), PO: Rambandhu Talab, PIN – 713 303.
2. Modi Enterprise, represented by its Proprietor, having its office at Ashok Vihar, Gali No. 3, Main Railway Road, City Gurgaon, Haryana, PIN – 122 001.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., represented by its Manager, having its office at 21/14/A, Phase – II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi, PIN – 110 028.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops have neither returned the questioned mobile set to him nor refund the cost of the said mobile set till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new Micromax Blaze HD smart phone through online from Snapdeal on 18.8.2015 by making payment of Rs. 7,760=00 from the Op-2. The Op-2 issued an invoice in his favour. The carrier boy of Snapdeal delivered the mobile set to the complainant along with invoice and receipt of Snapdeal in a sealed packet along with a warranty card for a period of one year showing the date from the date of purchase of the same. Within a few days of receipt of the same phone the complainant began to face several problems at the time of operating the same in respect of memory related problem etc. So the complainant handed over the same to the customer care/service centre of the Op-3 which was situated at D.C. Electronics, Durga Market, Asansol on 13.10.2015 and the service centre issued a job sheet. For the first instance the service centre remarked in the column ‘repair warranty’ as “no” and for that reason the service centre changed the same job sheet for two times on 27.11.2015 & 01.12.2015, but the phone was not repaired by them. Thereafter, the concerned service center became closed for ever and the phone was handed over to the complainant in the first week of February, 2016. Thereafter the complainant submitted his mobile phone before the Op-1 on 12.02.2016 and accordingly a job sheet was issued in his favour. But the Op-1 neither handed over the said set to him after necessary repairing nor intimated anything till filing of this complaint. As per the instruction of the previous customer care the complainant deposited the questioned phone set in the custody of the Op-1 which is also the authorized customer care/service centre of the Op-3. It is pertinent to mention that since depositing of the said set before the OP-1 for repairing, the Op-1 neither intimated about the status of the said phone, nor handed over the same after repairing to him. Being dissatisfied with such service of the Op-1 the complainant sent a written representation to the Op-3 on 12.4.2016. In reply the Op-3 sent a mail to him asking for extending co-operation with the Op-1 and giving assurance that he will get return of his phone very soon. But thereafter no communication has been made by the Ops with the complainant. Having no other alternative being compelled the complainant has filed this complaint before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops to return the mobile phone to him after proper repairing along with extended warranty or to pay a sum of Rs. 7,760=00 to him towards the cost of the said mobile along with interest thereon from the date of its purchase, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000=00 for mental pain and agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000=00 to him.
After admission of the complaint notices were issued upon the Ops. Order dated 05.10.2016 reveals that Op-3 received the notice on 19.3.2016 but reluctant to appear before this ld. Forum to contest the complaint either orally or by filing written version. For this reason the ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint ex parte against the OP-3. The order dated 25.11.2016 denotes that the unserved envelope was returned back with the endorsement as ‘unclaimed’. As such endorsement tantamount to good service, hence though the service was completed the OP-p2 did not turn up. The case was fixed for hearing ex parte against the Op-2 but subsequently the complainant has expunged the name of the OP-2 from the cause title of the complaint. In a similar manner inspite of receipt of notice form this ld. Forum the Op-1 did not turn up to contest the complaint. Therefore, the complaint has been fixed for hearing ex parte against the OP-1&3.
We have carefully perused the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant. We have heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant. The documents show that admittedly the complainant purchased the questioned mobile handset on 10.8.2015 by making payment of Rs. 7,760=00 from the OP-2, during its delivery one warranty card for the period for one year from the date of its purchase was also handed over to the complainant, within a very short span some problems were cropped up in the said mobile handset, i.e. memory related problem and others, the complainant contact with the OP-3 on 13.10.2015, job sheet issued, no repair was made, the handset was handed over to the complainant, the Op-3 was closed for ever, subsequently the complainant placed the said mobile set to the OP-1 on 12.2.2016 for its necessary repairing and removal of the problems as cropped up, Op-1 issued job sheet in favour of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that since its deposition with the OP-1 i.e. 12.2.2016 no communication was made with the complainant by the OP-1 and the Op-1 did not take any step either to hand over the said mobile set along with its defects or after repairing the same. Moreover no intimation was made by the OP-1 to the complainant till filing of this complaint. The complainant made written representation with the Op-3 and in reply though assurance was given to the complainant but to no effect. As the grievance of the complainant have not been redressed by the Ops in respect of repairing of the said mobile set and removal of the defects from it, by filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for either to hand over the said mobile set in a repaired condition or to refund the entire cost of the said mobile as paid by him during its purchase and other reliefs. It is seen by us that admittedly the said mobile handset is lying till date with the OP-1. Though was assurance was given that repair will be made but the Op-1 has failed to do the same in an effective manner. Therefore, it is clear to us that the mobile handset has been kept under the custody of the Op-1 till date without repairing the same. As the complainant purchased the said mobile handset after making payment of the due cost and within the warranty period defects cropped up in the said mobile set the Op-1&3 are liable either to remove the defects as cropped up (which is evident from the job sheet) or to refund the entire cost of the said mobile set to the complainant positively as early as possible. As the complainant has proved the deficiency in service of the Op-1&3 by adducing cogent documents, hence the complaint is hereby allowed.
It is true that the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get the mobile in a repaired condition but he has failed to get the same and ultimately approached before the court of law for redressal of his grievance. Due to deficiency in service and inaction of the OP-1&3, in our view the complainant is entitled to get some amount towards compensation and as the complainant had to incur some expenditure for this complaint, he is also entitled to get litigation cost. Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP-1&3 with cost. The OP-1&3 are directed either severally or jointly to hand over the said mobile hand set to the complainant in a repaired condition within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the OP-1&3 are directed either jointly or severally to refund a sum for Rs. 7,760=00 (the cost of the mobile hand set) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the said amount of Rs. 7,760=00 shall carry penal interest @10% per annum for the default period. The OP-1&3 are also directed either jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation to the complainant due to immense harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs. 500=00 to the complainant within a period of 45 days, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire order in execution as per provisions of law. Be it mentioned that the OP-1&3 are liable either jointly or severally to provided extended warranty for the said mobile hand set to the complainant for about eight months from the date of servicing the same to the complainant (date of receipt of the same by the complainant) and for such extended warranty the complainant shall not be liable to make any farthing to the Ops.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
