DATE OF FILING                    :     05.11.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      10.02.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     24.04.2015.  

Smt. Bitasta Debnath,

daughter of Bankim Debnath,

residing at 78/1/13, Thakur Ramkrishna Lane, P.S. Shibpur,

District Howrah,

PIN 721104. ….…………….………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  M/S  R. K. Services,

  address 223/3, Mahendra Bhattachariya Road,

  Howrah 711104 .…………………………………………...…………OPPOSITE PARTY.

   

   

                                                  P    R    E     S    E    N     T

   

  Member  In  Charge      :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

          Member       :     Shri Subrata Sarker.

   

                                                   F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

   

• 1. Complainant, Bitasta Debnath,by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to repair the functional defectsof the mobile set in question, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation alongwith other relief or reliefs as theForum may deem fit and proper.

   

• 2. Complainant bought one mobile set ( Model Micromax A65, Colour White, IMEI no. 911241250861752 ) from Nu Work Teleworlds, 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Martin Burn Building, Kolkata 700001, on payment of Rs. 6,000/- on 13.04.2013. After few days of purchase the mobile set in question started giving various troubles. Complainant visited the office of the o.p., which is the authorized service center of the manufacturer, Micro Max, for several timesand requested them to replace the defective set but the o.p.did not pay any heed to her request although the mobile set in question was examined for three times but the problem of the set was not minimized and no job sheet was issued in favour of the complainant. Again on 28.5.2014complainant went to theo.p. with the same problem. The o.p. took the mobile set in its custody and issued a job sheet. After a long time, o.p. handed over a new set with new IMEI number. The complainant became surprised and asked the o.p. to return her original mobile set. The o.p. requested the complainant to take the new mobile set mentioning the new IMEI number in her cash memo. The complainant did not agree with the proposal and refused to accept it. After lapse of one month complainant got back her mobile set but the same problem persisted. Subsequently complainant contacted the o.p., service centre, but they did not pay any heed on the plea that the warranty period was already expired. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, she filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.

   

• 3. Notice was served. But the o.p. never appeared and nor filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.

   

• 4. Two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

2. Whether the complainant isentitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Both the points aretaken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. Even after making the full payment of  Rs. 6,000/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. She has been deprived of using the set. The overall attitude of o.p. is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.P. should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No post sale service has been given by the o.p. in proper time. Moreover, one same model set has not been delivered to the complainant in place of the set which he bought as per his choice. How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. Moreover, the o.p. has not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.  O.p. has miserably failed   to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in  service coupled with unfair trade practice  on their  part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.   And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant  should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 568 of 2014 ( HDF 568 of 2014 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is directed to refund  Rs. 6,000/-, being the  purchase price of the mobile set, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order .

       That o.p. is further  directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/-  as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 9,000/- to the complainant  within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid  amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is also directed to return the mobile set lying in her custody after receiving the decreetal amount.      

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member In  Charge, C.D.R.F., Howrah.