This is a complaint made by one Sandip Mondal, son of Panchu Charan Mondal, residing at Charaktala, P.O.-Rasapunja, P.S.-Bishnupur, Dist.-South 24-Parganas, Kolkata-104 against (1) Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., 12th floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, OP No.1, (2) Lakshmi Telecom, 341, Nivedita Sarani, near Behala Parnasree Airport Culture Math, Kolkata-700 060, OP No.2, (3) Lime Light, 136/2, Diamond Harbour Road, P.S.- Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 063, OP No.3, praying for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is a Pvt. Ltd. company, OP No.2 is a service centre and OP No.3 is a retail shop.
Complainant purchased a mobile phone under name Panasonic Eluga-I from the show room named Lime Light, OP No.3 on 9.6.2015 for his personal use. After purchasing the said mobile phone within a few days it was found that it was not functioning properly. Complainant immediately informed such complication at the service centre, OP No.2 situated at 341, Nivedita Sarani, Behala Parnasree Airport Culture Math, Kolkata-700 034. Complainant also informed OP No.2 and its office that after repairing the mobile phone its performance remained same and requested the OPs to make the mobile in order. But, his mobile could not be brought in order.
Complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 27.5.2016. So, Complainant contends that OPs did deficiency in services and has sprayed for Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.60,000/- as Compensation , Rs.60,000/- for mental sufferings and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost.
On the basis of the above facts, notices were served. But, OPs did not appear. So, the case was heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, it appears that Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition in his affidavit-in-chief. This affidavit-in-chief reveals that the mobile phone of the Complainant was not repaired by the OPs properly and so Complainant was compelled to file this complaint. Further, it is clear that the price of the mobile phone was Rs.9,800/-. OPs by not making appearance failed to rebut the allegations brought by the Complainant.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that if an order for refund of the price of the mobile phone is made the object of justice would be served.
Accordingly, we are of the view that OPs be directed to refund the price of the mobile phone which is mentioned as Rs.9,800/- with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. It is because OPs did not contest the complaint, even after receipt of the notice and which leads to proof of the Complainant’s allegations.
Hence,
ordered
CC/390/2016 and the same is allowed ex-parte in part. OPs are directed to refund Rs.9,800/- to the Complainant within two months of this order provided Complainant surrenders his mobile phone. In addition, OPs be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within the said period, otherwise, both the amount shall carry interest of 10% p.a.
