C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/70
COMPLAINANT : Sri Shamik Majumder
S/o Sri Sankar Majumder
7 Rabindra Sarani,
Siddheswaritala,
Ranaghat, Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : M/S Sristi
30, S.V. Sarani,
P.O. + P.S. Ranaghat, Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 6th January, 2010.
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set under the name & style Motorola CDMA, model No. W362, from the OP on 15.11.08 at a price of Rs. 3,800/-. It is his further case that within a few days after purchase the mobile set was not working properly. So on 24.01.09 he reported the matter to the OP and requested him to change the set. At that time he handed over the mobile set along with other documents such as warranty card, charger, head phone etc. to the OP for repair. On 25.05.09 the mobile set was returned to him and the OP assured that the set was perfectly repaired, but again on the same date it was noticed by him that the defect of the set was not at all removed. So he requested the OP to change the mobile set and accordingly he returned it to the OP. As the mobile set is very much essential, so the complainant got another mobile set from the OP on 11.02.09 amounting to Rs. 1699/-. He requested the OP time and again to change the Motorola Set by a new one or refund the balance amount of Rs. 2101/- at which the OP declined to act as per that. So having no other alternative, he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of the complaint.
One, Animesh Ghosh on behalf of the OP in this case prayed for time to file written version. Time was granted to him, but ultimately he did not file any written version and also has not contested this case. So the case is taken up for exparte hearing.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with annexed documents and after hearing the submission of the complainant it is available on record that the complainant, Sri Shamik Majumder purchased one mobile set under the name & style Motorola CDMA, model No. W362, RSN-RMRHS 1500018905 on 15.11.08 at a price of Rs. 3,800/- from the OP. From the Annexure –A, it is available that he handed over the said mobile set to the OP on 24.01.09 for repairing the same with the defect “Automatical menu select and set hang”. It is also available on record that the set was though repaired by the OP, but actually the defect was not removed and the complainant could not use the set normally. So he had to purchase another mobile set, bearing No. LG RD – 3610 from the OP on 11.02.2009 at a price of Rs. 1699/-. From this it is clear that if the old mobile set worked normally then the complainant had no necessity to purchase another mobile set from the same mobile shop.
Therefore, considering all these we are inclined to hold that the disputed mobile set, Motorola CDMA was not working in proper condition since the time of purchase by the complainant. It is available on record that it was defective as per 'Annexure – 4' which was though repaired by the OP, but to no effect due to which the complainant had to purchase another mobile set. In view of this, it is clear to us that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as well as unfair trade practice as he failed to remove the defect of the newly purchased mobile set or to replace a new one instead of the defective one though it is his duty to replace a new one in exchange of a defective one already sold by him to the complainant. So our considered view is that the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount of Rs. 2101/- from this OP. He is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- for harassment caused to him and the mental agony supplied by him and also Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/70 be and the same is decreed exparte against the OP. The complainant is entitled to get a decree of Rs. 2101/- + compensation of Rs. 2,000/- + litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-, i.e., in total Rs. 5,101/-. The OP is directed to pay the decretal dues to the complainant within the period of one month since this date of purchase, in default the complainant is entitled to get interest upon the decretal dues @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
