Sri Subhra Senapati,

son of late Joydev Senapati,

of 144, Narashingha Dutta Road,

1^st floor, Kadamtala New Market,

Kadamtala, opp. Kadamtala Bus Stand,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101. .-----------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.M/S. R.K. Services,

   ( authorized Micromax Service Centre )

    223/3, Mahendra Bhattacharya Road, P.S. Jogacha,

    District – Howrah,

    PIN – 711104.

2. M/S; Micormax Informatics Ltd.

    Plot no. 21/14, Block – A, Phase – II,

    Nariana Industrial Area,

    New Delhi – 110028.----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Shri Subrata Senapati   U/S 12 of

the C.P. Act, 1986 as amended up to date against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to  replace the mobile set in question  and  to pay an amount Rs. 40,000/-  as compensation for mental pain and agony along with other relief/s as entitled as deem fit and proper by the Forum.

2.                  The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Micro Max

Mobile handset ( model no. X279,IMEI no. 911312404765239/911312404765247 ) on 01-08-2013 from Krishna Stationers, Howrah, vide bill no. 1356 of Rs. 1600/-.  The said mobile set started malfunctioning from the very beginning and showed signs of internal defects within 7 days of its purchase. The complainant brought notice to the O.P. no. 1 as per advice of M/S. Krishna Stationers for set right the same. But on the contrary O.P. no. 1 or his representative did not take proper care for set right the same in spite of handing over the handset to the O.P. no. 1. Finding no other alternative the complainant placed the same before the Forum for proper relief and compensation. Hence the case.

3.                  Notices were served upon the O.Ps. which were returned back by the post

remarks ‘not known’ which is also considered as good service as per Apex Court Order. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against the O.Ps. 

4.         Two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly

Complainant purchased the  mobile from the shop of Krishna Stationers, Howrah, at a price of 1,600/- . Admittedly the said set developed defects within 7 days of its purchase and the complainant repeatedly visited the service centre of the O.P. no. 1 and deposited  the same for proper repairing. Repeatedly the complainant made contact with the O.P. no. 1 or his representative but they did not change/ rectify the said set. He has categorized the dates when he made the O.P. no. 1 for repairing the same and to restore it to a workable condition. In these days a cell phone has become indispensable to every citizen. If since after purchase of the same  developed defects whether minor or major the complainant is at a loss and  his dreams are frustrated. Be that as it may in view of the unchallenged testimony we are of the view that it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.                   

      Hence,                 

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 335  of 2013 ( HDF 335  of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to replace the mobile set with a similar one with fresh warranty within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against him till actual replacement. If the said mobile set is unavailable, the O.P. no. 1 directed to refund the purchase price of  Rs. 1,600/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry interest @ 9% interest p.a. till recovery.

      The o.ps.  do also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainant.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the O.Ps.

      The O.Ps. are directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 6,000/- ( Rs. 5,000 + 1,000) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry an interest of @9% till realization.

      The complainant is  at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                                      (   P. K. Chatterjee )

   Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                              Member,C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                                                                                                                       

     ( T.K. Bhattacharya )                                                               (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                

   President, DCDRF, Howrah.                                           Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.