In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 204 / 2009 1) Sri Rahul Kumar Majumdar, 56A/50, Banerjeepara Road, Kolkata-41. ------------ Complainant ---Verses--- 1) M/s Vishal Elektrocrafts, 197, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-29. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member. Order No. 9 Dated 1 2 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 . Complainant Sri Rahul Kumar Majumder by filing a petition of complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 on 03/06/2009 has prayed for issuing direction on the opposite party M/s Vishal Electrocarfts to deliver a mobile set after repairing the same with new guarantee and in alternative the refund of cost of the mobile set of Rs. 3950/- with interest @ 15% p.a. and to pay compensation as the Forum may deem fit and proper. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 26/03/2008 he purchased a set of Nokia make mobile, Model-2630 with 1 (one) year period of guarantee. But on and from 12/12/2008 the mobile set became defective to the extent that the key of the set get got locked and as a result incoming and outgoing calls were totally stopped. He returned the mobile set on 13/12/2008 with a request that the numbers already stored are not disturbed and in case of any other defects it should be referred to manufacturer and he wrote letter to them accordingly. But they remained inactive and did not deliver him back the mobile set after being repaired. So it is a clear case of deficiency in service and accordingly the complainant has filed this case with aforesaid prayer. Decision with reason : Main point need be decided in this case are that whether the complainant is a consumer as provided u/s. 2(d)(1) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and whether the claim of the complainant is justified and whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. for not repairing the defective mobile set purchased by the complainant from the O.P. It appears from the Tax Invoice dated 26/03/2008 showing that including VAT @ 4% the complainant had paid Rs. 3950/- as consideration money for the mobile set of Nokia make model 2630. So, he is a consumer as provided u/s. 2(d)(1) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The warranty period was for 1 (one) year from the date of purchase on 26/03/2008. But it gave trouble within the period of warranty of one year as seen from his letter dated 09/01/2009 wherein he has stated that the mobile set became defective and out of order from 12/12/2008 which he informed to O.P. earlier. O.P. assured him to do the needful with regard to repairing of the same but did not do nothing. Further to his letter dated 09/01/2009 he reagitated the matter to the O.P. requesting the O.P. to inform that whether the matter was referred to Nokia for their assistance and whether they will supply him a mobile set in serviceable condition but inspite of it the O.P. did not give a reply not has taken any fruitful action in terms of the prayer of the complainant. There is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and accordingly we find merit in the case of the complainant although he has not filed he evidence on oath because O.P. has not taken any effort to controvert the claim of the complainant. Hence ordered that the petition of complaint is allowed ex prate. The O.P. is directed to deliver a new mobile set of same quality and price with new period of guarantee for one year from the date of delivery to the complainant positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order and / or in alternate to refund Rs. 3950/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- positively within 45 days from the date of communication of this order failing which it will carry interest @10% p.a. till full realization of grand total of Rs. 4950/-. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. ____SD-______ ______Sd-_________ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
