JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant received as a gift one new mobile hand set of Micromax Superfone Ninja 4.o bearing its MIMEI No. 911234853673815 in the month of March 2013.  The above mobile hand set had not been working properly for which complainant personally met with the service centre representative on 13.04.2013 to repair the mobile set.  Initially the service provider M/s Technique Serivces (West Bengal)/op no.1 was reluctant to repair the mobile handset but after a long persuasion of the complainant, they agreed to repair it with a cost of Rs.400/- within 15 days and subsequently handed over a job sheet bearing No. E030410-0413-34136 09 dated 13.04.2013.

          On 29.04.2013 a person called to the complainant from a mobile no 919143890672 informing him that the mobile handset is not repairable and complainant should return back the unrepaired mobile from the service provider M/s Technique Services (West Bengal)/op no.1 and being surprised complainant mentioned the fact that being a authorized service center of the Micromax Mobile, the service provider has to assist him to get the mobile hand set repaired but the said service provider did not pay any heed to that and did not repair the same and ultimately complainant called op no.1 to a phone number printed on the job sheet i.e. 033 40071827 and that time a lady in a good voice and submitted that there is no question of repairing.  So it may be taken back.  On the same day on 29.04.2013 at around 1.57 PM complainant lodged an official complaint in the web site portal of Micromax mobile complainant lodged aforesaid complaint for the Miucromax mobile stating detail of the fact.  In reply of the aforesaid mail, the customer support centre asked for the scanned job sheet which complainant called.  Thereafter on 07.05.2013 complainant called the customer care and after long wait in the phone line managed to talk with one customer care representative and after thorough search she informed the complainant that the complaint is already in the system and appropriate authority is looking into the matter and also provided the complainant with one complaint docket no. 0705134835 with an assurance that complainant would be contacted shortly.

          Thereafter on 31.05.2013 complainant again sent an email asking about the status of the handset and in reply the customer care reported “ ….we would like to inform you that you need to visit service center again and submit the handset”.  Being astonished complainant immediately sent a reply through email that the handset was already with the custody of service center i.e. M/s Technique Services (West Bengal)/op no.1 and he did not take delivery of the unrepaired mobile set from the said service center and since the mobile is not in the possession of complainant, so no question arises for submission of the mobile handset to the service provider.  In reply the customer support replied that complainant’s case is showing closed to check with service centre for same.

          On 31.05.2013 complainant wanted to know the exact meaning of the averment made in the email as “ your case is showing closed”, complainant again tried to talk with customer care many times but would not get any reply finally after getting line of one of the Customer Care support staff and after long hold complainant was informed that as per their computer generated system it was showed that complainant had taken delivery of the damaged Micromax Mobile hand set from M/s Technique services (West Bengal)/op no.1 as a tremendous shock and after being exhausted and disappointed by all the unwarranted development, complainant on 31.05.2013 emailed a letter to Micromax authority stating that complainant wanted his mobile phone back in repaired and working condition failing which he was delivered legal proceedings.

          Against that one email was received which speaks that complainant’s letter has been sent to the appropriate department and in such a manner complainant has been harassed and complainant has failed to get any relief from the op and finding no other alternative complainant sent demand notice dated 17.09.2013 which was delivered to the op but op did not take any step.  In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for relief and for compensation.

          Notice was duly served upon the op, but op did not turn up to contest this case.  But even then time was given for filing written version by the ops and written version was also not filed by the op for which after taking the evidence of the complainant in chief and necessary document the case was heard ultimately exparte.  In the above circumstances we are disposed of the case on the basis of the materials produced by the complainant.

                                                        Decision with reasons

          On careful study of the complaint including the materials on record, it is proved that complainant is a holder of one Micromax Superfone Ninja 4.o bearing its MIMEI No. 911234853673815 and fact remains he submitted the said mobile handset to M/s Technique services (West Bengal)/op no.1 the authorized service center of Micromax and it was received by the op M/s Technique services (West Bengal)/op no.1.  But thereafter the said set has not been returned to the complainant.  After that complainant sent several emails but M/s Technique services (West Bengal)/op no.1 reported that it shall be palced after repairing and truth is that it was deposited on 13.04.2013 vide job sheet No. E03041004133413609 dated 13.04.2013.

          After that complainant reported the matter to Micromax authority who asked the complainant to visit the service center again and to submit the handset.  But truth is that handset is already in the custody of the op since 13.04.2013 and considering all the above fact, it is clear that service center in lieu of repairing charge has not returned the said mobile handset and thereafter complainant sent a demand notice on 19.06.2013 through his Ld. Lawyer to the op including customer care officer Micromax authority for return of the same in a good condition after repairing.  But from different corner he did not get any result.  So, considering all the above fact, it is clear that either Micromax mobile authority or its service center M/s Technique Services (West Bengal) did not discharge their duties as service provider and manufacturer of the said company.

          Most interesting factor is that in this case notices were dully served upon the ops but they did not turn up to contest this case though they have got chance to defend.  So considering that fact it is clear that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops and practically M/s Technique Services (West Bengal) has not yet returned the said handset to the complainant and so M/s Technique Services (West Bengal) is liable to return the said mobile handset with free from all defects otherwise op no.1 shall be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and if in any case it is found that the said mobile set is not repairable in that case ops shall have to handover a new mobile handset on identical nature and status to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

          Considering the conduct of the op no.1 it is apparent that the op as service provider did not discharge their duties as service provider and their act tantamount to unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice and at the same time the deficiency and negligence on the part of the ops are found in all respect and fact remains for such sort of activities and conduct of the ops as traders of business man or manufacturer or as service provider is no doubt have caused much pain, sufferings and loss of time including financial loss to the complainant for which complainant is entitled to get such relief in this case against the ops.

          In the result, complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                                ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the ops with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

          Op no.1/ M/s Technique Services (West Bengal) is hereby directed to handover a defect free and usable mobile handset after proper repairing to the complainant which is already lying in the custody of the op no.1 and which was deposited for repairing by the complainant on 13.04.2013 and if for any reasons op is not able to handover mobile handset after proper repairing and in good condition i.e. in fresh condition in that case all the ops are directed to handover a new handset of similar status and nature and style to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and even if it is not possible for them to handover it in that case op no.1 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

          For adopting unfair trade practice and deceptive manner of service by the ops, ops are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay punitive damages a sum of Rs.15,000/- to this Forum and this punitive damages is imposed against the ops to check their habits and trade adopting unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice in dealing with mobile hand set selling and trading business to the customer.

          Ops are directed to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for its delay each of the op shall have to pay penal interest @ Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and even prosecution u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them for which further fine and penalty may be imposed.