Date of Filing: 28.07.2015 Date of Final Order: 29.01.2016
The case of the complainant Mr. Sanjoy Raha is that on 30-07-2014 he purchased a LAVA IRIS 402 C Model mobile set of Rs.3993/- from Microtonics, B.S. Road, Cooch Behar. After two months of purchase the said set some problem cropped up for this could not use the set. Facing the said problem the Complainant contacted with the retailer and he was suggested to contact with the Service Centre. Then the Complainant rushed towards Service Centre, “Mahamaya Enterprise” within the warranty period to sort out the problem of the Hand Set. The Opposite Party advice the Complainant to submit the battery and they returned after one week after repairing the defect. As per advice of the O.P the Complainant handed over the set to the O.P and the O.P. returned the same within seven days but the problem remain same. Further, the Complainant again contacted with the Opposite Party, Service Center but his problem in the Mobile Hand Set did not cure. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the O.P harassed the Complainant by not giving proper service as to the defects in the mobile set and he is facing a lot of problem as because the warranty period is going to be end. Finding no other alternative, he has filed the present case praying for relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
It appears that the sole O.P. No.2 the Company in this case did not appear despite receiving the notice. Besides, on 27-08-2015 for the O.P. “Mahamaya Enterprise,” Represented by Mr. Abhijit Saha, Proprietor of “Mahamaya Enterprise,” entered his appearance through his appointed Ld. Adv. Mr. Himadri Shekhar Roy and took time to file his written version.
Now, let us discuss the written version of the O.P. No.1 dated 27-08-2015, wherein it has been stated that the case is not maintainable, complainant has no right to file the case, no cause of action arose, mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties etc. as a matter of denial of the entitlement of claims of the complainant and denying/ admitting the matters on record.
It has been admitted that the petitioner purchased a mobile hand set on 30.07.2014 from Microtonics, B.S. Road, Cooch Behar and after a long time use of the set, the Complainant brought the set to the O.P complaining “Auto Off and Auto Work also weak battery backup problem”. The O.P. instantly received the same by issuing a Customer Job Card on 25.06.2015 being No.586 and as the case was repeat one, the O.P. with consent of the Complainant sent the set to the Company and returned the set to the Complainant after proper repairing from the Company.
This answering O.P. No.1 further contended that for malafide intention & harassment, the Complainant has brought such false, wild, baseless allegations against this O.P. as because after using a considerable period, just before one year of completion of Warranty Period the Complainant brought the set to the Opposite Party, Service Centre only for squeezing money. The other contention of the Opposite Party is that, after receiveing the complaint from the Complainant this O.P. took initiative and provided actual service for which it has no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives. Perused the Evidence of the Complainant and Evidence, W/Ar. of the O.P. No. 1 also documents filed by both the parties.
The record is taken up for hearing of argument. The contesting O.P. No. 1 is absent without taken any step. Considering the W/Ar. of the O.P. No. 1 we heard the argument of the Complainant in absence of the O.P. No. 1 for ends of justice.
Point No.1.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased a LAVA IRIS 402 C Model mobile set of Rs.3993/-from Microtonics. The O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise is the service centre of LAVA and the O.P. No.2, the manufacturer of the mobile set in question.
So, relation between the complainant and the O.P. No.1 & 2 so established from the records we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite parties.
Point No.2.
O.P. No.1, Mahamaya Enterprise has service centre at Cooch Behar town.
Valuation of the case is far less than the prescribed limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case.
Point No.3 & 4.
From the discussion herein before, we transparently find that O.P. No.1 in his written versions admitted the prime points of purchase of the mobile set by the Complainant from Microtonics, B.S. Road, Cooch Behar, who has not been made party in this case and vehemently argued that this case is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. But in view of ruling reported in 2014 (4) CPR 258 (SC) claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties. So in our view the present case is well maintainable against the present O.Ps. regarding allegation leveled against them.
We find that, said set was received by the O.P. No.1 being the Service Centre of the Company is not in dispute. The battery of the mobile set required repairing and it was to be done by the authorized Service Centre i.e. “Mahamaya Enterprise,” also has been admitted by it. The O.P. received the said hand set and issued a JOB CARD in favour of the Complainant on 25.06.2015 and it appears that the O.P. No. 1 provided proper service within the warranty period as per its limit.
We do not find any documents as to the warranty of the said hand set but it is fact that the set was faced problem within short period of purchase that is also admitted and it can be reasonably presume that the dispute cropped up within the warranty period and as such the Complainant is entitled to get proper service from the service provider.
We also perused the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant which speaks that the Complainant handed over the disputed mobile hand set to the Opposite Party No.1 intended to return back the set in working condition but all are in vain. Besides, the O.P.1 contended that the set was sent to the Company and after returning from the Company this O.P. handed over the set to the Complainant for which it has no deficiency in service.
From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty period and as per version of the O.P. 1 the case was “Repeat One” that means previously the problem also appeared. Within one year the Complainant placed the set two times before the service centre for which it is reasonably be presumed that the said set has some inherent defect In view of ruling reported in 2014 CJ 402 (NC). The Company is liable to replace the defective set or make return the price of the said goods. 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 and it is not fair to raise such question that just before completion of the warranty period the Complainant willfully filed the case. 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. 1 is not sustainable.
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 there is some defect in the mobile hand set as after proper servicing that was not cured properly and only the Company is liable to sort out the problem.
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 provider the O.P. No.1 has no liability to return back the cost of the Mobile only the manufacturer/Company is liable to return the price of the set with compensation to the Complainant.
In the light of the foregoing discussion we are in considered view, that only refund of the cost of the mobile hand set will met the justice as and when it is already decided in a case reported in 2009 CTJ 180 (CP) (SCDRC) that- in a dispute of a defective goods, the cost of such goods be refunded to end the dispute. Replacement of goods is not a solution as such goods may not be upto the satisfaction of the consumer.
ORDER
Hence,
it is Ordered that the complaint is allowed in Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 with cost of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P. No. 1. The O.P. No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,993/- as cost of the said Mobile Hand Set with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. The Opposite Party No. 2 is hereby directed to comply with the order within 45 days failure of which the O.P. 2 shall have to pay @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay by depositing the accrued amount if any in this regard, in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consume Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
