Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one mobile along with a memory card from M/s Silicon Telepoint Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice No. STPL/5033 on 30.05.2013 and paid Rs. 1,900/- to the op no.2 and on purchase after a few days the said mobile was not functioning and thereafter the complainant informed the said fact to the op no.2 who advised the complainant to inform the matter to the op no.1 the service centre. Thereafter complainant went to the office of the op no.1 and handed over the said mobile for repairing on 29.06.2013 against which op no.1 issued a job card on receipt of the said mobile.
Thereafter complainant sent a letter to the op no.1 to deliver the said mobile on 19.08.2013. But op did not respond. Considering the non-cooperation and negative attitude of the op no.1, complainant sent email to the opno.2 on 04.11.2013 but op no.2 was found tight lipped and the attitude of the ops were completely negligent and deficient in manner and fact remains after purchasing a new mobile complainant has suffered much and in fact within one month the said mobile was found not working and dead.
The most interesting factor is that even after repeated reminders it was not returned by the op no.1 and no step was taken for which ultimately complainant was compelled to file this complaint before this Forum on 23.12.2013 after waiting for about 6 months from the date of depositing the said defective mobile to the op no.1 on 29.06.2013 and for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op and also harassing the complainant by the op, complainant has filed this complaint for redressal and for directing the op to handover the said mobile in a running condition removing all defects and also damages etc.
On the contrary op no.2 the seller of the mobile has reported that he has/had nothing to do, he asked the complainant to deposit the same to service centre and complainant submitted it and no doubt it is the liability of the op no.1 for not handing over the same and there is no liability on the part of the op no.2 because he discharged his liability and responsibility and he is the seller but manufacture company is op no.3 and service centre op no.1 is liable for that for which this complaint should be dismissed against op no.2.
Whereas op nos. 1 & 3 jointly submitted in writing that they received the said mobile on 29.06.2013 in dead condition and that was sent to Kolkata Head Office on 09.07.2013 and same was returned to the op no.1 on 23.06.2013 with okay condition and customer was reported over telephone on 23.06.2013 and asked to pick up the same and thereafter complainant did not contact with the op no.1. So, it was not delivered and it was the laches on the part of the complainant and the said mobile was ready for delivery within that month i.e. by July-2013 and the said set is in good running condition for delivery. But customer did not turn up. It is specifically mentioned by the op no.1 that from October-2013 they are not service provider, so company can do necessary step. In this regard company has also submitted that they are always ready to handover the same but complainant did not turn up for which the complaint should be dismissed against them.
Decision with reasons
Considering the complaint and written version of the ops and complainant and also considering the fact that complainant has proved one letter dated 19.08.2013 wherefrom it is found that letter was sent to Mobicare by Speed Post and from the India Post Internet result it is found that it was delivered to Mobicare at Shyambazar Mail S.O. on 23.08.2013. But in respect of that there was no answer on the part of the op. But op has submitted that they talked with the complainant to receive it but complainant did not turn up.
Fact remains that the company authority has reported that op no.1 received the said set on 29.06.2013 in dead condition that handset was sent by op no.1 to the op no.3 on 09.07.2013 and op no.3 returned the said set on 23.07.2013 with okay condition to op no.1 and op no.1 called the complainant over telephone on 23.07.2013. Thereafter also complainant was asked to pick up the mobile but complainant did not appear. But considering the internet result of the letter sent by the op no.1 against the letter of the complainant it is clear that invariably complainant did not get the same set from the op no.1 and being disgusted about the behavior and negligent act and manner of service on the part of the op, they filed this complaint and no doubt it has become a fraud practice on the part of the service centre and the manufacturer has taken such plea before this Forum particularly.
Considering the above fact in so many cases the service centre and the manufacturer company have been imposed penalty for harassing the customer in such a manner and no doubt in the present case it is proved that the defence as taken by the op is after thought and fact remains op no.1 received the letter sent by Speed Post as sent by the complainant on 23.08.2013 but that has not been denied by the op no.1.
On the contrary the track result of the said letter being No. EW363082582IN was booked on 22.08.2013 and it was delivered on 23.08.2013 by Shyambazar Mail S.O. and that track result proved that op no.1 received the same but did not respond as yet and considering all the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that op no.1 no doubt harassed the complainant for about 6 months for which complainant was compelled to file this case for proper action and for that reason op no.1 is completely responsible and he is liable to pay compensation and also litigation cost in view of the fact the service centre of different mobile company are not in a mood to give proper service and in fact they are not behaving with the customer properly and also they did not give any relief to the customers even after receipt of the dead mobile handset or other goods and that is the common features and in the present case it is also proved against op no.1.
No doubt op no.3 repaired the same and forthwith sent it within 21 days from the date of receipt of the said set from op no.1. So, apparently the laches, deficiency and negligence on the part of the op no.3 is not proved.
In the result, the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op nos. 2 & 3 but without any cost but same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
Op nos. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby directed to hand over the said mobile set which was received by the op no.1 on 29.06.2013 from the complainant and at the time of handing over the said set to the complainant further warranty for another one year shall be given to the complainant in respect of that set by the ops and op no.-1 shall have to issue such certificate to the complainant along with said set that in future if the said set is required to be repaired if any problem is created in all respect during further one year warranty period op no.3 shall be responsible to give all services at free of cost.
For harassing the complainant by op no.1, op no.1 shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order for causing mental pain and harassment to the complainant by op no.1.
Ops are hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within 15 days from the date of this order subject to appearance of the complainant before the op no.2 and op no.3 and in this regard complainant to report forthwith for receiving the same along with such papers from the ops and complainant to be reported by the op no.-1 & 2 at once and complainant is also directed to be dynamic in this regard and shall report to op nos. 2 & 3 at once for receiving the same without any further delay because in this case complainant’s attitude towards op nos. 2 & 3 is well ventilated. If ops fail to comply the order within the stipulated period in that case each op shall have to pay further penalty and fine as per provision of Section 27 of C.P. Act 1986.
