Sandip Kumar  Shukla,

son of Sri Shambhu Nath Shukla,

residing at 187, Maharishi Devendra Road,

c/o. Ranjan Timber 2^nd floor, near  Shyam Mandir,

Kolkata – 700006.--------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Nokia Care,

Touch World,

at  93/7, Deshpran Sasmal Road,

Howrah – 711101.

2.      Nu-york Teleworld,

1, R. N. Mukherjee Road,

Martin Building ( opp. Lalbazar H.Q.)

 Kolkata – 700001.

3.      Chief Manager,

Nokia Care, Plot No. 243, 1^st & 2^nd Floor,

Tower A,  S.P. Infocity,

Udyog Vihar Phase – 1, G urgaon,

Hariana.--------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President – in - charge   :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant Sandip Kumar  Shukla U/S 12 of the

C.P. Act, 1986 as amended up to date against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to  replace the mobile set in question or to refund the purchase price of the said with interest and  to pay an amount Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony along with other relief /s as entitled, as deem fit and proper by the Forum.

2.                  The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant  purchased a mobile

handset amounting to Rs. 4,600/- of Nokia C 203  bearing IMEI Sl. No. 359326048133702/10 from O.P. no. 2 on 02-12-2011 for his personal use.  The said mobile set started malfunctioning from the very beginning  i.e., on 21-06-2012 such as net work, blue tooth, switch off and on, display white etc. duly reported to the service centre i.e., O.P. no. 1 for removal of the same which was duly rectified and returned the said set

to the complainant. But most surprisingly it is found that the said set again got damages / malfunctioning on the dated 29-08-2012 and reported the same to O.P. no. 1 whose subsequently received the same followed by his expression his inability to cure / rectify the defects.  The complainant repeatedly requested through verbally / his ld. Counsel for

set right the defect in permanent nature. But all attempts are in vain.  Finding no other alternative he / the complainant filed the case alleging deficiency in service in providing service against the O.P.no. 1 before the Forum praying for relief and compensation. Hence the case.

3.                  The O.P. no. 1 vide his written version contending interalia and admitted  the

inherent defects and also agreed against undertaking repairing works made by him on 20-04-2012 after being sent the said handset to his repair workshop at  Delhi with details the problem (inherent) therein. It is also opined by this answering O.P. that immediately repair the set he got further report of malfunctioning of the said set on 05-01-2013 including further request for refunding the money against purchase defective handset but on the contrary declined to refund the money on the plea that the same should be routed through the Consumer Forum with necessary direction / order. They have no intention to harass the complainant moreover the intention to refund the entire money of the purchase set if necessary order may be passed.

4.                  Notices were served  with  A/D to  the O.Ps. namely O.P. no. 2 & 3 duly been

received  by the respective  O.Ps. but failed to appear nor did they submit any written version for which ex parte order was passed against them.

5.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

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

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.       Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Complainant purchased the

 mobile set on payment of required amount and the set was showing malfunctioning from the very first day which was duly been informed by the complainant to the O.Ps. as per record. It is noticed from the record that the complainant purchased the handset on 02-12-2011 and the said set got damages / malfunctioning on and from 21-06-2012. The O.P. no. 1 or his representative taken up the repairing works and assured the complainant that the said handset henceforth is free of all troubles. But the complainant was not satisfied with the assurance of O.P. no. 1 because of the fact that the said set was further got damages / malfunctioning, wherein it is crystal clear that the set was having manufacturing defect since inception. The complainant purchased the hand mobile set for being contract with his business which is meant for his livelihood and lying unused because of malfunctioning as such the petitioner has suffered humiliation and loss of prestige amongst his business associates which is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the O.P. no. 1  not only that O.P. no. 1  failed to provide required service so that the set could have been operated smoothly, the O.P. no. 1 sold a defective set to the complainant.

      Accordingly we hold our considered opinion that the action of O.P. no. 1 for selling a defective goods is a deficient in nature which tantamount gross negligence and deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to get the relief as compensation as prayed for.

      The points under consideration are accordingly disposed of.

      The case succeeds on merits.

      Hence,                 

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 82  of 2013 ( HDF 82  of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with   costs  against  the O.P.  no. 1 and ex parte without cost against the rest.

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to replace the mobile set with a similar one with free warranty within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against them till actual replacement. If the said mobile set is unavailable, the O.P. no. 1 directed to refund the purchase price of  Rs. 4,600/- tTo the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry interest @ 9% interest p.a. till recovery.

      The o.p. no. 1  do also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainant.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the O.P. no. 1.

      The O.P. no. 1 is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 7,000/- ( Rs. 5,000 + 2,000) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., lit shall carry an interest of @9% till realization.

      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.  

    (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                                 (   P. K. Chatterjee )

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

                                                                                                          (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                               

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