IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 68/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
29.04.2016 09.05.2016 30.08.2017
Satyajit Sarkar, S/o late Arabinda Kumar Sarkar,
Vill. Darbeshpara (Infront of TaritSanghaClub),
P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj,
Dist. Murshidbad, Pin: 742 225. …………… Complainant.
-vs-
- Abhinandan Mobile Shop,
Fultala, Raghunathganj,
P.O. & P.S. Raghunathganj,
Dist. Murshidbad, Pin: 742 225.
- The Manager,
TVS Electronics Ltd. (first Floor),
100 Raja Basanta Roy Road,
Nr. Sarat Bose Road Post Office,
Kolkata: 700 029.
- Manager,
HTC India Private Limited (Corporate Office),
G-4, Bptp Park Avenue, Sector 30,
Gurgaon: 122002, (Near NH-8), Haryana. ....... 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.
The door of this Forum has been knocked by the Complainant for redressal of the consumer dispute as per the C. P. Act, 1986.
In succinct, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile hand set (Model : HTC Desire 826, Duel SIM with the IMEI no. 357290062153735 and the Serial No. S/N – CC 555 YG 08848) on 17.05.2015 from the Opposite Party no. 1 shop by paying the cost price of Rs. 25,800/- only.
But with the 10 days from the date of purchase the camera of the said mobile phone as alleged by the Complainant, found to be defective . The Complainant deposited the said disputed Mobile hand set towards the Opposite Party No. 1 but after some days the Opposite Party returned the same with continuation of same problem. The Complainant further delivered the said Mobile hand set for servicing and removing the camera problem but the said mobile in issue was returned to him with poorer picture quality in the camera in the said Mobile hand set.
Thereafter the Complainant repeatedly asked for replacement of the said Mobile hand set in issue with a new one but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same though the said Mobile hand set 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.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 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.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
The specific case of the Opposite Party in crisp, is that, the Opposite Party has taken every possible step to satisfy the Complainant. After getting the complaint from the Complainant the Opposite Party repaired the said disputed device but the Complainant was not happy with the repair. Moreover, this Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 offered the Complainant to repair the alleged defective camera free of cost. These Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 always tried to satisfy all the customers. Thus, theses Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on their part towards the Complainant. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of this case.
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 Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and perusing the material documents in record, admittedly it is evident that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile hand set (Model : HTC Desire 826, Duel SIM with the IMEI no. 357290062153735 and Serial No. S/N – CC 555 YG 08848) on 17.05.2015 from the Opposite Party No. 1 shop by paying the cost of Rs. 25,800/- only which is evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant.
The record reveals that within a few days from purchasing the said Mobile hand set in issue the camera in the said Mobile phone was found to be defective which is specifically admitted by the Opposite Parties in Para – 2 of the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3.The Complainant admitted the fact that the Opposite Parties repaired the said Mobile hand set in question twice but the same was not in good condition.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
It is evident from the Record that the instant matter was referred to the Lok Adalat dated 08.07.2017 for amicable settlement and mediation wherein the Opposite party was duly present with a new Mobile hand set but the Complainant remained absent for which the instant case remained pending before the Consumer Forum.
Now, the fact remains that at the time of hearing argument the Opposite Party was again present with the new Mobile hand set for replacement and the Forum after due inspecting and comparing the new Mobile hand set with the previous defective one, found that the new Mobile hand set is more or less same with almost same features and facilities.Butat this time the Complainant refused to accept the said new Mobile phone as replacement and claimed and/or verbally prayed before the Forum for refund of the purchase money which the Opposite Parties refused to pay.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant proved that the Complainant had purchased a Mobile hand set which is defective and the Opposite Party is ready to replace the same with a new one with almost same feature and same facilities but the Complainant refused to accept the same though it is revealed from the petition of complainant that the Complainant prayed for replacement of the said defective Mobile hand set with a new one. So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that no compensation and no amount of litigation cost shall be awarded and/or allowed in favour of the Complainant.
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.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
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. 2 & 3 without any cost and also allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No. 1 without any cost.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,800/- only (the actual cost price of the said defective Mobile hand set in issue) to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order, whereas the Complainant shall have to return the said defective Mobile hand set towards the Opposite Parties at the same time.
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 the ‘Order’ be available and be supplied to all the parties or to their ld. Advocates or authorized representatives free of cost under proper acknowledgement for information and necessary action.
