West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/66/2017

Sri Ashis Ash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RN Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Md. Anayet Ulla

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.66/2017

 

Sri Ashis Ash, S/o-Late Madan Ash, C/o-Ashok Kumar Deb,

 Vill-Bara Astana, Bankimpally, P.O.-Midnapore,

P.S.-Kotwali, District- Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                      ..…….……Complainant.

Vs.

1. M/S-RN Telecom (Amrit Building), Khudiram Bose Road,

Burdge Town, near Collectory Midnapore, P.O.-Midnapore,

            P.S.-Kotwali, District- Paschim Medinipur

                              2) Star Communication Centre, Sepoy Bazar (Shah-Adil Market),

                       P.O.-Midnapore,  P.S.-Kotwali, District- Paschim Medinipur

                 3) Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

                        90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana, Pin-122015

                                                                 ………….….Opp. Parties.

                                                     

            For the Complainant  :  Md. Anayet Ulla, Advocate.

            For the O.P.                 :  Mr. Susanta Kumar Jana,  Advocate.

                                                                    

                                                             Decided on: -15/12/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Sri Ashis Ash, S/o-Late Madan Ash alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

                       Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a mobile handset manufactured by O.P. no.3  at a consideration of Rs.9,000/- on

                                                                                                                                                                    Contd………..P/2

                                          

                                                                                                                    ( 2 )

02/06/2016 from the O.P. no.2 and after some days the said mobile phone started malfunctioning for which the  complainant went to the O.P. no.2 who sent him to the O.P. no.1 Service Centre for repairing the same. It is stated in the petition of  complaint that the complainant on several occasions went to the O.P. no.1 for repairing his mobile set but O.P. no.1 failed to repair the defects of the said mobile set. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that the complainant sent a demand notice dated 07/03/2017 through his  lawyer to the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 but neither they refund the price of the mobile nor did they replace the same  by new one according for which to the complainant has been compelled to file this instant case. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to refund the price of the mobile in question with the statutory interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and to pay litigation cost.

   O.Ps. appeared on the case and O.P. nos. 1 & 3 filed written version but subsequently the O.P. no.3 did not contest this case further and therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against him vide order no.9 dated 10/10/2017. O.P. no.2 appeared but did not contest this case hence the case was proceeded ex-parte against him vide order no.8 dated 06/09/2017.

To prove his case the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and during his evidence some documents are marked as Exhibit 1-5 respectively and O.P. no.1 has also examined himself as OPW-1 and during his evidence some documents are mark as Exhibit-A & B.                                                                                                            

                                                     Points for  determination

1. Whether  the complainant is the Consumer under the O.Ps. ?
2. Whether there is defects in goods and deficiency in providing after sale service ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?

                    Decision with reasons

               Point no.1.

It is evident from the cash memo filed by the complainant that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model no.Micromax-E451 by paying a sum of Rs.9,000/- on 02/06/2016 from O.P. no.2 and thus the complainant has became consumer under the O.P. as per section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.

Point no.1 is decided accordingly.

               Point no.2.

Admittedly the complainant has purchased a mobile set in question on 02/06/2016. The complainant has alleged that since purchase he could not use the said

                                                                                                                                                             Contd………..P/3

                                        

                                                                                                                       ( 3 )                  

set due to its defect. The complainant has further alleged that he verbally communicated the same to the O.P. no.2 but the O.P. no.2 did not entertain his complaint. No documentary evidence is produced against such claim. However, it is evident from the job sheets dated 15/12/2016, 3/1/17 & 23/1/17 that the O.P. no.1 attended the defective mobile set for repair. It further appears from the documents on record that the complainant served the demand notice upon the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 through his Advocate on 07/03/2017 expressing his dissatisfaction regarding the mobile set in question demanding replacement of defective set by new one otherwise refund the price of the mobile in question. It is evident therefrom that the complainant was not satisfied with repair of the mobile in question. This is not expected that after six months of the purchasing of a mobile set it will develop defects one after another so that the usage of the same will be next to impossible. Therefore we are inclined to hold that the said set is still containing defect(s).

As regards the point on after sale service the O.P. no.1 being the authorized service centre provided service as per instruction of O.P. no. 2 the seller although the service centre could not remove the defect properly. Moreover it appears from the job card that the service centre noted a problem of the defective set but did not note whether the defect/problem had been removed by repair of the said set. Therefore we are inclined to hold that the defect is still persisting.                                                                                                         

Considering the state of affairs we are inclined to hold that the said set was defective and the after sale service provided by the O.Ps. failed to remove the said defect.

Point no.2 is decided accordingly.

               Point no.3.

It is evident from the discussion as made in respect of point no.2  that the mobile set in question is still containing defect(s) and inspite of three attempts (on 15/12/16, 3/1/17 & 23/1/17) for removing the same by repair the O.P. could not  succeed. Moreover O.P. nos. 2 & 3 did not finally appear to challenge the evidence adduced by the complainant. Since the mobile set is manufactured by the O.P. no.3, he is also liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. Hence, as per provision of section 14 of the C.P. Act 1986, we are of opinion that the O.P. nos.  2 & 3 are liable to replace the said set by defect free new one of same description failing which they are liable to refund the price of the said set.

We think it is just and proper that the complainant should be awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.

                                                                                                                                                            Contd………..P/4

                                        

                                                                                  ( 4 )

Considering the circumstances no amount for compensation is awarded.

                In course of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant has submitted that since purchase of the mobile set in question the complainant could not use the same as the same was defective one. Ld. Advocate of the complainant has further submitted that after several attempts for repair the authorized service centre did not remove the defect from the said set and therefore, the complainant prays for refund of the price of the said  mobile set since he lost his faith on the O.Ps. he does not like to have a new set for replacement of defective one. In support of their contention Ld. Advocate of the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

1. SCDRC, Delhi. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. Vs. Tarun Pahwas, decided on 18/04/2017
2. DCDRF, Ludhiana. Sh. Chamkaur Singh Vs. M/s-Anmol Telecom. Decided on 29/08/2016.

               Ld. Advocate of the O.P. no.1 has submitted that since they have provided service three on demand of the complainant they cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.    

The decision relied by the complainant are not applicable to this instant case since they are of different context.    

Point no.3 is decided accordingly.                                                                                                                  

In the result the complaint case succeeds in part.                                                                    

                                 Hence, it is,

                                                          ORDERED

                                   that the consumer complaint case being no. 66/2017 is hereby dismissed without cost against O.P. no.1 and is allowed in part ex-parte against O.P. nos. 2 & 3 with cost.

O.P. nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the said mobile set by defect free new one of same description failing which they are liable to refund the price of the  said mobile set.

O.P. nos. 2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                          Sd/- S. Sarkar                                                                             Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                                                                           President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur