IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 155/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
10.11.2016 17.11.2016 29.11.2017
Mrs. Soma Naskar,
C/o Basudeb Naskar,
113 A.C.Road(East), Indraprastha,
P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742103. …………… Complainant.
-vs-
- PRASANTA (Samsung Retailer),
92 B B Gupta Road,
P.O. Khagra, P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742103.
2. Manager- Jain Telecom,
(Samsung Mobile Service Centre)
26 Ramkrishna Bhattacharjee Road,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101. ......... Opposite Parties.
Complainant In person ……… for Complainant
Representative In person ……… for Opposite Party
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
Sri Manas Kumar mukherjee .…. ….. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :-
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone J – 7 2015 on 01.07.2016 from the Opposite Party no. 1 shop. But after some days, within the warranty period, the display of the said Mobile phone was out of order from 23.09.2016 for which the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 as advised by the opposite Party No. 1 for repairing the said Mobile. But the Opposite Party No. 2 had asked to pay the service charge of Rs. 6,005.36/- only for repairing the same.
The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party No. 2 for repairing the said Mobile Phone in question and also asked for replacement of the same with a new one but the Opposite Parties neither replaced the said Mobile Phone nor repair the same without any cost though the said Mobile Phone was found defective within the warranty period what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed the Written Version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the same is not maintainable.
The specific case of the Opposite Party no. 1 in crisp, is that, the Warranty upon the said Mobile phone in question was given by the Sumsung Company not by this Opposite Party No. 1 and the Sumsung Company has the separate Service Centre namely the Opposite Party No. 2. This Opposite Party No. 1 sells the Mobile phones maintaining all rules and regulations and so this opposite Party No. 1 was/is not responsible for any loss incurred by the Complainant for purchasing the said Mobile Phone in question or for any defect in the said Mobile Phone.
Moreover, the said Mobile phone was not working due to own fault of the Complainant and the Complainant has filed this case for her personal gain and only to harass the Opposite party.
Thus, this Opposite Party No. 1 has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on their part towards the Complainant. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of this case.
Despite service of the notice, the Opposite Party No. 2 never appeared before the Forum in person and/or through any authorized representative / Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version and thus the instant case have been heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 2.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The main dispute what is to be decided by the Forum is that, whether the Opposite Parties are liable and/or negligence towards the Complainant in rendering service or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Complainant in person and perusing the material documents in record, as because none on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 or 2 has ever appeared before the Forum at the time of hearing argument on repeated calls, admittedly it is evident that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone J – 7 2015 on 01.07.2016 from the Opposite Party no. 1 shop for cost of Rs. 14,242/- only which is evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant.
The record reveals that the Complainant alleged to be found defective after some days from the date of purchasing the same and within the warranty period, that the display screen of the said Mobile phone was out of order from 23.09.2016 and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 for repairing the same.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
It is further evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No. 2 had issued a quotation on 25.09.2016 of estimation of repairing charge/cost of Rs. 6,005.36/- only for repairing the said Mobile Phone in question towards the Complainant. But in the said ‘Quotation Sheet’ the opposite party No. 2 did not mention any comment and/or remark as to why the repairing cost had to be paid by the Complainant/Consumer within the Warranty Period and it is not justified and reasonable to claim the repairing cost from the Consumer within the ‘Warranty Period’.
Moreover, the Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear to contest the case and never stated any cogent reason as to why they had claimed the sais alleged repairing cost from the Complainant/Consumer within the stipulated ‘warranty Period’ and the contesting Opposite Party No. 1 also did not dispute and/or denied the said fact in their Written version.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant proved that the Complainant had purchased a Mobile phone which is defective in its display screen and neither the Opposite Party No. 1 nor the Opposite Party No. 2 is ready to repair and/or replace the said Mobile Phone in question which is definitely the deficient and/or negligent manner of rendering service towards the Complainant.
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that both the Opposite Party is liable to repair the Display Screen of the said Mobile Phone in issue in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant, in default to do the same both the Opposite Parties is further liable to replace the said Mobile Phone in question with a new one of same model and same facilities in favour of the Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 1 without any cost and also allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 2 with cost of Rs. 1,000/- only payable within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally is directed to repair the Display Screen of the said Mobile Phone in dispute in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That in default or failure to repair the said Mobile, both the Opposite Parties Nos 1 & 2 jointly and severally is alternatively directed to replace the said Mobile Phone in question with a new one of same model and same facilities in favour of the Complainant within seven days from the date of failure to repair the said Mobile Phone in issue by the Opposite parties.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order, the default Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the State Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
