Hon'ble Mr. Debangshu Bhattacharjee, Member
This is an application under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 filed by one Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar against New Google Communication, Gionee India and Gionee Service Centre,B.S.Mobile coochbehar praying for Cost of the Mobile Phone Rs.19.290/- , Repairing charge Rs.550/-, Mental pain, agony Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation Rs.1000/- and for professional loss-Rs.10000/-.
The gist of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant purchased a Gionee A1 (Black Color) DUAL SIM bearing IMEI Nos. 863854031617505 and 863854034617502 Mobile phone (particulars are given below) from the O.P. No.1, on 24th May 2017 amounting to Rs.19, 290/- and the O.P. No.1 assured the Complainant that they would render proper service towards the Complainant.
Particulars of the Mobile Set :-
a) Model – Gionee A1(Black Color) DUAL SIM
b) Make – Gionee
c) IMEI NO. 863854031617505 and 863854034617502.
From the date of purchasing, the said mobile handset was working properly. But after 11 (Eleven) months of the purchasing of the said mobile hand set started giving problem. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted with the O.P. No. 1 for changing the said Mobile Phone but the O.P. No.1 advised him to go to the nearest Gionee Mobile Servicing Centre, namely Gionee Service Centre B.S. Mobile i.e. the O.P. No.3. In the month of June 2018, Gionee Service Centre repaired the mobile phone on the same day by taking Rs. 550/- as service charge from the complainant. On 3rd July 2018 the alleged mobile phone started giving problem again. The complainant went to the OP.No-3 shop. OP.No-3 received the mobile phone from the complainant and issued a job sheet with a reported problem “Physical damage –Non PBC”. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the service centre on several dates but the Mobile handset was still not repaired. Accordingly, the O.Ps made harassment to the Complainant causing mental pain and agony.
The Complainant submitted that when he did not get services for his Mobile set, he applied before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Regional Office, Cooch Behar against Gionee Service Centre, B.S. Mobile, Cooch Behar vide complaint No.1316/41/C1CC/18-19 and the mediation was held on 25/07/2018 where the representative of the OP No.3 Mr. Prosenjit Dam was present. It is contended that the complainant has not yet received any response from the OP-3 and that is why he filed the instant case.
After receiving the notice from the forum the O.P. No.1, 2 (Through Speed Post) and O.P No-3 (service by office peon, Received by Mr. Rana Bhadra dated-11/10/2018) did not turn up in this case, for which this case was heard ex parte against all Ops.
The complainant files evidence on affidavit, written argument and also participates in hearing of argument.
In the light of the contentions of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record, also heard the ex-parte argument advanced by the complainant at length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased the mobile set from O.P-No-1 from his present address which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The O.P. No.3 service centre of O.P. No.2 issued a Job sheet in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant purchased the mobile set from the New Google Communication against payment of Rs.19,290/- and the O.P-No-3 is the Service Centre of that Mobile company. So, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the “Consumer” of the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
The office/shop of the service centre of O.P.No-1 and O.P.No-3 service centre of O.P.No-2 is situated in this district and the value of the present complaint is far less than the pecuniary limit of this Forum. Thus, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased a mobile hand set of New Google Communication on 24th May,2017 by making payment of Rs.19,290/-. The said set bears the warranty period.It is also not in dispute that the seller, New Google Communication issued Cash Memo in favour of the Complainant. (Annexure –P1). After receiving the notice from the forum the O.Ps did not turn up in this case, for which this case was heard ex parte against all the Ops.
The point of the dispute is that the said mobile hand set within warranty period started giving problem as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence on affidavit. The Complainant handed over the said set to the O.P. No.3 for servicing but the O.P-No-3 did not give proper service to the complainant.
We have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the documents, evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant. It appears that the O.P-3 received the mobile hand set from the Complainant on 03/07/2018 and issued Job Card with reported problem “Physical damage” Warranty Category – in Warranty, Warranty void (Normal). As per warranty condition the service centre had the duty to return the set in workable condition after proper servicing. But the contention of the O.P. No.3 has not been proved .The O.P. No.3 received the set but did not provide actual service to remove the defects in the hand set. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.3 cannot be ruled out. Also the Complainant has been deprived of using the mobile set that he purchased on paying of Rs.19,290/-/-.
From the discussion made herein before, we find that the problem in the mobile hand set cropped up within the warranty period. (Annexure –P2). Besides that, it is proved that the O.P. No. 3 did not render proper service to the Complainant and thus, the act and conduct of the O.P. No. 3 falls under Section 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act 1986. It is the duty of the service provider to render proper service to the customer free of cost within the warranty period as per warranty conditions. As and when the problem cropped up within the warranty period the consumer has every right to go service centre to avail proper service. More so, the O.P. No. 3 admitted the problem in the hand set. And the mobile handset was in warranty period. In this case the O.P. No.3 did not give proper service and also claim for 6500/- to repair the mobile set from the complainant. .Thus, deficiency in service of the O.P. No. 3 cannot be ruled out.
The O.P. No. 1, the seller of the mobile set O.P.No-2 Manufacturing Company of the mobile phone, did not contest the case that means the O.P. No. 1&2 has nothing to challenge the allegation of the Complainant. The main aligation of the complainant is Against Gionee Service Centre,B.S. Road, Mobile-Cooch Behar (O.PNo-3). At the time of mediation in CA&FB department the complainant file complaint against only the Gionee Service Centre,B.S. Road, Mobile-Cooch Behar.
Be that as it may, on foregoing discussions and considering the circumstances of this case, together with the attitude and thoughts of the parties in litigation we have reason to believe that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No-3 and he is liable to pay compensation.
As it has already been proved that the O.P.No-3 has deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief with compensation.
Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant. In the result the complainant case is succeeds in part. Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present Case No. CC/75/2018 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the O.P. No.3 and dismissed ex parte against the O.P. No.1 &.2.
The O.P. No.3 is hereby directed to return the mobile set of the complainant (Model –Gionee A1 (Black Color) DUAL SIM bearing IMEI Nos. 863854031617505 and 863854034617502 in running condition free of cost. Failing which O.P. No.3 has to pay Rs.19,290/- to the Complainant.
The O.P. No.3 is directed to pay compensation for mental pain and agony of the Complainant of Rs.3, 000/- and Rs.2,000/-to the Complainant as litigation cost.
If the aforesaid order is not complied within 30 days from the date of this order, the O.P. No.3 is liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the entire awarded sum for a period until realization. Complainant shall also be at liberty to execute the said order in accordance with law.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/ by Post with for information and necessary action, as per Rules. The copy of the Final Order also available at www.confonet.nic.in
Dictated and corrected by me.
