This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that on 19.3.2016 the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and purchased one Sandisk, 16 GB microchip for his mobile phone at the cost of Rs. 300/- and after purchasing the said microchip the complainant on the same date installed the same in his mobile and after installing the complainant found that the chip was not giving reading. Then on the same date the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and told him the fact and the owner of the shop installed the same in his mobile and found that the complaint of the complainant is correct and told the complainant to come after 2/3 days and he would replace the same with new one. But when the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party, the opposite party neither replaced the same nor refunded the cost of the chip. In the meantime on 21.3.2017 the complainant sent one letter demanding either replacement of the chip or refund the cost of the chip but the opposite party refused to accept the said letter. Moreover the complainant went to the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Joraghat, Hooghly and lodged one complaint against the opposite party for settlement of the dispute. The office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Joraghat, Hooghly sent one notice to the opposite party and fixed a date to attend their office for settlement of the dispute but the opposite party did not turn up to the office.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party either to replace the chip in question of the same model or refund the present market price of the said chip in question and to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for unnecessary harassment, mental agony and anxiety and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost and to give any other relief as deem fit and proper.

The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him and prayed to dismiss the instant case.

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit in which he stated that the complainant never came to his shop to purchase the chip in question and thereafter went to him for the replacement of the said chip by a new one. Opposite party also denied that the complainant never refunded the cost of the chip.

            Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those are not exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-. So, this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The complainant in his argument averred that on 19.3.2016 he went to the shop of the opposite party and purchased one Sandisk 16 GB microchip for his mobile phone at the cost of Rs. 300/- and the opposite party also issued a receipt to that end in favour of the complainant. After purchasing the same the complainant installed the same in his mobile he found that the said chip was defective/ fake one as the same was not responding. On the self same date the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and told him the fact of defect and the opposite party installed the said chip in his own mobile in presence of the complainant and the opposite party also found the said chip as defective and the opposite party kept the said chip in his custody and asked the complainant to come after 2 or 3 days in his shop and assured to replace the said defective chip with a new one. But the opposite party neither replaced the said defective chip nor refunded the cost of the chip in favour of the complainant and also abused the complainant with filthy languages. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party asking him either for replacement of the defective chip or refunding the cost of the said chip. But the opposite party refused to accept the letter. Thereafter the complainant approached the Assistant Director of CA&FBP for mediation/ settlement but the opposite party did not appear. So, the complainant filed the instant complaint case.

The opposite party in his argument stated that the complaint case is harrassive, baseless and designed with malafide intention and denied the allegations of the complainant.

After hearing the complaint petition and written version and perusing the documents in the case record it appears that the complainant after purchasing the microchip found defective. Then he approached the opposite party for replacement or to refund the value of the chip but the opposite party did not respond at the utterance of the complainant. Rather the complainant several times approached the opposite party for getting his chip in workable condition but the opposite party failed to provide him the chip in workable condition. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the opposite party turns down the prayer of the complainant in respect of changing the chip in question or to refund the value. The opposite party contested the case by denying the allegations regarding the harassment and mental agony but no evidence filed as to satisfy this Commission that he had tried his best to satisfy the consumer by providing service.

From the above observation this Commission is in the opinion that the opposite party is deficient in providing service to the complainant. For which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and other reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition. Thus, the complaint petition filed by the complainant has sufficient merit as such it is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 176 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 5000/- against the opposite party.

            The opposite party is directed to replace the defective 16 GB microchip of Sandisk by a new one in default refund the value of the invoice price.

            The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony of this complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.