Date of filing: 24.10.2016 Date of disposal: 27.02.2017
Complainant: Mehedi Hasan Sk., S/o. Kowsar Ali Sk., resident of Village: Beledanga, Post Office: Hatbele, Police Station: Kalna, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 409.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. M/s. NEXGEN SERVICES, represented by its Proprietor, having its office at 1st Floor, Shibram Super Market, B.C. Road, Kalitala, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 102.
2. Micromax Informatics Ltd., represented by its Manager, having its office at 21/14, Phase – II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi, Pin – 110 028.
Present: 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 No. 1: None.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Abhijit Datta Chowdhury (ex parte).
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 and unfair trade practice as the Ops have sold him a defective phone and not repaired the said damaged phone.
The fact of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Micromax Spark (Q380) Smart Phone on 15.7.2015 bearing IEMI No. 911429309021458 from Vikalp Ventures – BIJ through Snap Deal by issuing a tax invoice in favour of the complainant of Rs. 4,999=00 with a warranty of one year and the manufacturer of the said phone is OP-2. The complainant further submits that after few days from the date of purchase the mobile phone begun to face many problems and it starts to hand for long time, the screen became in its non-working mode, showing that the memory card is not supported, display problems etc. and for that reason as it was within the warranty period the complainant went to the OP-1 and the OP-1 received the phone and issued a job card on 16.6.2016. After repairing the said phone they returned the phone to the complainant but after few days again the phone started malfunctioning and then became dead. Being frustrated the complainant again deposited the phone before the OP-1 and they again took the phone into their custody and issued a job sheet on 01.7.2016. Thereafter the OP-1 informed the complainant they have repaired the phone and it is in good condition and also asked the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,140=00 is required as the display of the phone has been changed by them and the complainant on good faith paid the same to the OP-1. But very surprisingly when the complainant reached to take the phone some problems again appeared and the OP-1 suggested for depositing the same for further repairing. Finding no other alternative the complainant deposited the same before the OP-1 for the third time. Since 01.7.2016 the phone is in the custody of the OP-1 and they are reluctant to hand over the same to the complainant after repairing. When the complainant went to the OP-1 they informed that the phone has been sent to Kolkata for repair as it is dead and whenever the complainant went to the OP-1 they intimated him that the phone is not yet ready and he should come after some days. The complainant also submits that the Ops have firstly sold a defective mobile phone and secondly when the phone started to play problematic then they neither repaired properly nor returned the same to the complainant till date. The OP-1 has also taken Rs. 1,140=00 from the complainant for repairing the same inspite of knowing that the phone is under warranty. The complainant strongly believes that there is an inherent defect of the said phone for which the OP-1 is not in a position to repair the same. These acts of the Ops tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for which the complainant had to suffer mental harassment, agony and pain. The complainant prays for directing the Ops either to replace the mobile phone with a new one or to pay a sum of Rs. 4,999=00 along with interest from the date of purchase and also for directing the Ops to pay Rs. 20,000=00 as compensation and Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost.
Notices were duly served upon the Ops, but the Ops did not appear in due time to contest the case personally or by filing written version. It is evident from the record that the OP-2 appeared through Ld. Advocate by filing vokalatnama after expiry of statutory period for fling the written version. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the Ops.
Decision with reasons:
Perused the documents submitted by the complainant as evidence on affidavit. During a period of less than one year i.e. within the warranty period the mobile phone in question has got defunct, but the said phone could not be repaired, raising the question of inherent defect of the mobile phone. The Ops have neither repaired the set nor replaced the same, but also kept the said mobile phone in their custody since 01.7.2016, which is absolutely a deliberate intention of the OP-1 to harass the complainant by way of unfair trade practice. Hence, the claim of the complainant is justified and thus the complainant wins the case.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the consumer Complaint being No. 186/2016 is allowed ex parte against the Ops and the OP No. 2 is directed to replace the mobile set of same model [Micromax Spark (Q380)] Smart Phone to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the Ops will be liable to pay either jointly or severally to the complainant the price of the mobile set, i.e. Rs. 4,999=00 along with interest @8% per annum from 15.02.2015 till its realization and the Ops are further directed to pay either jointly or severally Rs. 2,000=00 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 500=00 as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, 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 of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
