Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 21.02.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund full price of the said Mobile hand set paid at the time of purchase along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a Nokia 525 Mobile from opposite party no. 2 for his daughter on 17.06.2014. Opposite party had given extended one year manufacturing warranty on the said handset. After some time of purchase, the aforesaid mobile developed several malfunctioning regarding which he had lodged a complaint with opposite party no. 2 but no step has been taken for redressal of the grievance of the complainant. Opposite party no. 2 merely directed the complainant to approach opposite party no. 3 and explained him the defect of the mobile. Thereafter the engineer of opposite party no. 3 examined the mobile and issued the Job Sheet vide annexure – 2 after taking the mobile. From perusal of annexure – 2 ( Jobsheet) it is crystal clear that wifi and Bluetooth were not functioning at all. The complainant after two weeks visited the authorized service center for receiving the aforesaid mobile but same was not received on the pertext of persistence of defect. The complainant thereafter approached opposite party no. 2 several times but the aforesaid mobile wasnot delivered to the complainant after removing the defect.
From record it appears that notice was issued to the opposite parties but the registered notice of opposite party no. 3 returned unserved as he has refused to receive the notice. The registered notice dated 07.07.2015 of other opposite parties ( i.e. opposite party no. 1 and 2) has not returned unserved then the Valid Tamila was declared agsint them when despite sufficient opportunity, the opposite parties did not appeared then this case was heard ex – parte and as such this order is being passed.
It goes without saying that in absence of any counter version of the opposite parties we have no option but to rely on the statement of the complainant which have been stated on oath.
From bare perusal of complaint petition it is crystal clear that after purchasing the said mobile vide annexure – 1 the said mobile developed malfunctioning for which the mobile was delivered to opposite party no. 3 and the said mobile has not been returned to the complainant which disclose deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
For the discussion made above we direct the opposite parties to return the price of mobile which he has taken vide annexure – 1 i.e. Rs. 10,400/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Four Hundred only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the amount of Rs. 10,400/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Four Hundred only ) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- ( Rs. Three Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the above mentioned period of two months.
It is further directed that at the time of returning the price of the said mobile hand set, the aforesaid mobile hand set will be property of opposite parties if the same is in their custody.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member -Smt. Karishma Mandal President- Nisha Natha Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge Retd.
