J U D G E M E N T

            Today is a case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directing an amount of Rs.4,999=00 or replacing the mobile phone, an amount of Rs.20,000=00 towards mental pain, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.10,000=00 towards litigation cost.

            The complainant’s case in short is that he had purchased a mobile phone by using online shopping on 26.05.2016. The cost of the phone was Rs.4, 999=00 including vat and tax and there was one year warranty in respect of that mobile. After that, the phone began to create several problems in respect of its display. So the complainant made contact with the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 for repairing the phone on 21.09.2016. On that day, the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 received the phone from the complainant and issued a job sheet in favour of the complainant. The O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 verbally assured him that they would deliver the mobile within few days before Puja Vacation. But in spite of several visits of the complainant before the O.P. Nos.1 & 2, they neither delivered the phone nor intimated anything. Then the complainant made contact with the O.P. No.3 and as per the direction of O.P. No.3, the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 sent an SMS at the phone number of the complainant by asking him to make contact with them on 28.10.2016. On 28.10.2016, the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 received the job sheet from the complainant & and handed over the mobile phone to him. But they again took the phone stating that some repairing works were still pending. After that, the O.P. No.1 issued another job sheet on 28.10.2016 and asked to contact after one week to receive the mobile. After a week when the complainant visited again to receive the mobile, very surprisingly the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 kept apart from that by raising unsatisfactory reasons. It happened for several times thereafter.

            The O.P. Nos.1 & 2 did not turn up to contest the case by filing written version. Therefore, the case was heard ex parte against the OP-1&2.  Though the O.P. No.3 filed written version to contest the case but as the same was filed after statutory period of filing written version, so the same was not accepted.

                                                            -: Decision with reasons:-

 On hearing of the O.P. No.3 has stated that the defect of the Phone was completely due to mishandling & not a manufacturing one. As the phone was purchased on 26.05.2016 with a warranty of one year & the complainant went to the O.Ps to repair the phone on 21.09.2016, so surely it was not beyond the limitation of the warranty period. How the OP-3 - the manufacturer of the said mobile phone come a conclusion that the defect of the phone was completely due to mishandling and not a manufacturing one is not at all clear to us. The OP-1&2 i.e. the authorized service of the OP-3 has not stated anywhere in their job sheet that the mobile defect of the phone had arisen due to mishandling by the complainant. Moreover, first time the OP-1&2 received the mobile phone from the complainant on 21.09.2016 for its repairing by issuing a job sheet no. E030460-0916-25561535, dated 21.09.2016 and then they again on 28.10.2016 returned the mobile phone by taking the job sheet issued by them and again taken back the mobile phone on the same time by issuing another job sheet being No. E030460-1016-26188418. Thereafter the OP-1&2 neither repaired the mobile phone nor returned back the mobile phone to the complainant, which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP-3 also cannot shirk its liability by saying that that the defect of the phone was due to mishandling and not a manufacturing one. When the OP-1 has no document to do such remark and no report from its authorized service centre, the manufacturer is trying to save its skin and also trying to save his authorized service centre who is practicing their business in such unfair manner.  So this Forum is of the opinion that the Ops are very much negligent and there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not repairing the phone and not returned the mobile phone to the complainant without any reason.

Hence, it is         

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 82/2017 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP-1&2 and allowed on contest against the OP-3 with cost directing the OP-1, 2 & 3 to return either jointly or severally the mobile phone to the complainant after repairing the same fully within 30 days from the date of passing of this order or to return the price of the mobile phone Rs. 4,999=00 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The OP-1, 2 & 3 are also directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs. 1,000=00 as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions lf law.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                              (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                   President

                                                                                                      DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

(Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                                                                   

               Member

DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

                                           (Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                          (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                      Member                                                 Member

                                         DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman               DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman