Date of Filing: 02-01-2017                                        Date of Final Order: 30-06-2017

Sri Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member.

The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Mriganka Sarkar purchased one Micromax Canvas Knight, mobile hand set being Model No. CAMEO A 290, IMEI No.911379253910315, Colour White and Gold, with one year warranty from the date of purchasing i.e. 11/03/2016 along with Retail Invoice being Item Code DM659947 dated 11/03/2016 by depositing Rs.5,839/- from the SKG Enterprise-Spear-2, Delhi.   

Subsequently, within few days from the date of purchase, the said mobile set of the Complainant was totally ‘‘Switch OFF’’ and did not function at all. The Complainant went to the O.P. M/S Mahamaya Enterprise, Authorized Customer Service Centre of Micromax mobile regarding the said problem of his mobile set and the O.P informed to the Complainant to hand over the said mobile set for necessary repairing. Accordingly, the Complainant does the same. After one month the O.P returned the mobile phone to the complainant after repairing.  But, after few days the same problem arose in the same mobile set. Again the complainant went to the O.P., M/S Mahamaya Enterprise. The O.P received the mobile set from the complainant and issued a Job Sheet dated 06/09/2016 and the Complainant was asked to come after 7 days to take the said mobile set. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the O.P shop on several occasions. After few months the OP gave a different headset on same model to the Complainant. The complainant refused to take that unknown set. Till today the mobile hand set is under the custody of the OP.

Due to such activities of the O.Ps, the Complainant had been suffering from mental pain & agony and financial loss also there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, adopting by the O.Ps.

Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to refund Rs.5,839/- (purchase amount) and also to pay (ii) Rs.14,161/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and financial loss and (iii) Rs.118/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.

The O.P, Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing W/V denying all allegations of the complainant contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant is not bonafied consumer of this opposite party. The case is bad for mis –joinder or Non- Joinder of necessary parties as the complainant neither made the seller SKG Enterprise as party nor he made the manufacturer Micromax Company as party in this case.   The main contention of the O.P is that when the Complainant brought the said handset on 06/09/2016 with complaining “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON” then the O.P after examined the said handset issued a job card in the name of the complainant .After repairing the charging point the OP asked the complainant to take back the said hand set, but the complainant refuse to take it.  Since then the Complainant never came to this O.P.

Ultimately, the O.Ps, have prayed for dismissal of the case with sufficient cost.

In the light of the contention of both the parties, the following points necessarily come up for consideration to reach a just decision.

POINTS  FOR  CONSIDERATION

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?

3. Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?

4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.

Point No.1.

It appears from the record that the Complainant purchased a Mobile hand set on 11/03/2016 and handed over the set to the O.P for repairing the set on 06/09/2016. The O.P issued a Job Card in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant purchased the mobile set of the Micromax Company against payment of Rs.5,839/- and the O.P is the Authorized Service Centre of that company, for which we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the “Consumer” of the O.P.

Point No.2.

The office/shop of the service provider of O.P. is situated in this district and the value of the present complaint is far less than the prescribed limit. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try this case.   

Point No.3 & 4.

Both the points are taken up together for consideration of discussion as well as the points are related with each other.

Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased a mobile hand set of Micromax Company on 11/03/2016 by making payment of Rs.5839/-. The said set bears the warranty period of one year from 11/03/2016.

It is also not in dispute that the seller, SKG Enterprise-Spear-2, Delhi, issued a Retail Invoice in favour of the Complainant. This seller is not a party in this case. The O.P also submitted that the case is bad for non-joinder the Manufacturing Company as a necessary party.

The point of the dispute is that the said mobile hand set within a short period started giving problem (POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON)as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence on affidavit. The Complainant handed over the said mobile set to the O.P. for repair the mobile set, but the O.P did not return the set to the Complainant after repairing.

The O.P Service Centre has contested the case and by filing W/V, contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable before this Forum Both parties filed evidence on affidavit and the OP also files written argument.

It appears that the O.P received the mobile hand set from the Complainant on 06/09/2016 in the second time for repairing  and issued Job Card with reported problem “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON”.

The O.P after examined the said handset issued a job card in the name of the complainant. After repairing the charging point the OP asked the complainant to take back the said hand set, but the Complainant refuse to take it.  The O.P is still ready to hand over the repaired hand set to the complainant.

There is also no iota of evidence in the record that the O.P contacted with the Complainant to receive the set and the Complainant wants a replacement of the mobile handset and demanding a new one as he stated in evidence and W/V. There is no evidence adduced by the O.P that the power of the mobile hand set dose not switch on due to use by the Complainant in an “Unusual manner”

As per warranty condition the service centre had the duty to return the set in workable condition after proper servicing. Thus, the contention of the O.P has not been proved also the O.P fails to file any cogent documents. Till date the mobile hand set in question is lying with the O.P since 06/09/2016. Thus, the deficiency in service of the O.P cannot be ruled out as the Complainant is deprived from using the mobile set that he purchased with Rs.5839/-.

From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty period thus it is reasonably be presume that the said set has some inherent defect. It is also proved that the O.P did not render proper service to the Complainant and thus, the act and conduct of the O.P falls under Section 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986. It is the duty of the service provider to render proper service to the customer free of cost within the warranty period as per warranty conditions. As and when the problem cropped up within the warranty period the consumer has every right to go service centre to avail proper service for which the plea as taken by the O.P is not sustainable.

It is pertinent point to mention that in this Forum many cases has been filed against this O.P alleging deficiency in service and most of the cases are decided against this O.P for which it is crystal clear that this service centre is working in this district by not rendering proper service to the customer. In this case the O.P did not give proper service also kept the mobile hand set in their custody for a long period. Thus, deficiency in service of the O.P cannot be ruled out.

The prayer of the Complainant is to return back the total purchased amount of the disputed hand set with compensation by the O.P.  In this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that only being the service centre of the company the O.P is responsible to give proper services to the customer of the company. The main problem is the “POWER DOSE NOT SWITCH ON”. The O.P in his all document admitted the fact that the said hand set is not working. The problem arises within the warranty period. From 26/05/2016 to till date the hand set is under the custody of the said O.P

Be that as it may, on foregoing discussion, circumstances to the case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we have reason to believe that the mobile hand set is defective and the O.P is liable to sort out the problem.

As it is already proved that the O.P. have deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief with compensation.

Thus, the complaint succeeds.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered,

            That the present Case No. CC/02/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

The O.P is directed to hand over the mobile hand set bearing IMEI No.911379253910315 to the Complainant with working condition absolutely free of cost within 45 days. As the mobile hand set is under the custody of the companies service centre from last Twelve months, the warranty of the said mobile hand set will be valid for another Six months from the date of order.  As a service provider of the Manufacturing Company (Micromax), the O.P is liable to give the extended warranty period to the Complainant.

The O.P is further directed to pay the Complainant Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony of the complainant  and adoption of unfair trade practices by the OP. The entire order shall be complied with by the O.P within 45 days i/d the O.P shall pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited to the Consumer Legal Aid Account, West Bengal.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.

Dictated and corrected by me.