In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I

CDF-1/Case no.332/2007

Amit Prasad,

P-11/3/31, Prayas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,

Baishnabghata-Patuli,  P.S.Patuli,  Kolkata-94                      …….     Complainant

vs.

M/s. Ingram Micro India (P) Ltd.,

S.G. Business Centre, 12, New Hasur Road,

Silson Garden, Bangalore-560 042    and    others                         ….. Opposite parties

Present :      Sri A.K. Das,  President

                    Sri L. K. Banerjee,  Member

                   Smt. J, Saha,  Member               

Order no.   8      dt. 30.06.2008

            Present consumer complaint has been filed by the petitioner demanding refund of Rs.12,200/- the value of the mobile set purchased from o.p. no.2 and other consequential reliefs alleging interalia that he purchased the mobile set from o.p. no.2 on 12.7.06 being model no.K-7501, IMEI no.357850000759727 vide cash memo no.16788 dt.12.7.06, annex-A,, with a warranty for one year. Said mobile set became dead on 7.10.07. Accordingly petitioner deposited the same with o.p. no.3 recognized service centre of o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.1 the manufacturer of the mobile set on 10.7.07, annex-B. Thereafter the mobile set was not returned back to the petitioner on repeated demand. Petitioner lastly on 17.8.07 served notice of advocate which was received by o.p. nos.2 and 3 but even then no positive action was taken on their behalf. Hence petitioner filed this consumer complaint for above relief.

            Notices of the consumer complaint have been duly served upon the o.ps. O.p. no.2 appeared on 18.12.07 and filed their objection. O.p. nos.1 and 3 did not turn up nor they  filed any w/v disputing the claim of the petitioner. Today none appears on behalf of o.p. no.2 excepting the ld. Counsel for the petitioner. O.p. no.2 in their w/v has contended that due to manufacturing defect it became dead. The primary responsibility give out upon the manufacturer o.p. no.1. They advised the petitioner to attend the service centre of o.p. no.1  for necessary repair. They have not directly contributed for such loss. Now it is evident from the record and the petition of complaint petitioner purchased the mobile set with  warranty period and it became non functional within the warranty period. Accordingly he purchased the service of o.p. nos.1 and 2 for repair but they did not provide the service. The contention of the petitioner is not disputed or denied. There is no evident on record contrary to the claim of the petitioner. Thereby petitioner is entitled to relief in this consumer complaint. The consumer complaint accordingly succeeds and it is awarded in the following terms.

            O.p. nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.12,200/- (Rupees twelve thousand two hundred) only  and compensation Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only and litigation cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the petitioner within three months from date, failing which it will carry  an interest  @ 8% p.a. till realization.

            Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.