BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 30 of 2013
Miftahul Hussain Talukdar, …………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Proprietor, S.M. Traders,
Central Road, Silchar, Dist.- Cachar, Assam
2. Proprietor, Chanda Commercial Centre,
Shyamaprasad Road, Silcahr, Shillongpatty,
Silchar, Dist. – Cachar, Assam – 788001.
3. NOKIA India Sales Pvt. Ltd.,
Flat No. 1204, 12th floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110001. Represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
4. NOKIA India Sales Pvt. Ltd,
S.P. Infocity Industrial Plot. 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase – I,
Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122016,
Represented by its Care Manager.………………………Opp. Party
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mehboob Hussain Mazumder, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Titu Deb Roy, Advocate for O.P.No. 2.
Sri Debabrata Das, Advocate for O.P. No. 3 & 4.
None for O.P. No. 1.
Date of evidence………………………………. 09-12-2013, 10-01-2014
Date of written argument…………………….. 29-07-2015, 12-04-2017
Date of argument…………….......................... 18-05-2017
Date of judgment……………………………... 20-06-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(Sri Bishnu Debnath)
- This is a Consumer Case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 for refund of price of Mobile Set, Nokia X2-02 IMEI No.354590058513203 with other relief including compensation.
- The complainant Md. Miftahul Hussain Talukdar purchased the above mobile set on 10-11-2012 for Rs.3,400/- from S.M. Traders, Central Road, Silchar (O.P No.1) and obtained cash memo. On 03-06-2013 the said mobile set was handed over to the Service Centre i.e, Chanda Commercial Centre, S.P. Road,(popularly known as Shillong Patty) for repairing because of its display I.C. problem. The said Service Centre (O.P No.2) issued Service Job sheet but did not deliver the repaired set in spite of visit and request of the complainant for 9(nine) occasions. Hence, brought the complaint.
- On receiving notice of this District Forum the O.P No.1 and O.P No.3 did not respond. O.P No.3 is Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi-110001. However, the O.P No.2 and O.P No.4 submitted their W/S separately. The O.P No.4 is Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Haryana-122016.
- The O.P No.4 in its W/S denied the allegation of deficiency of service and prayed to dismiss the case. The O.P No.2 in its W/S admitted the fact of issuing service job sheet and stated inter alia that after repairing the mobile set tried to contact the complainant on phone to deliver, but complainant did not respond.
- During hearing the complainant examined himself and exhibited cash memo and service job sheet. The O.P No.2 also examined Sri Tapash Mahanta and exhibited original service job sheet. Technical Verification form, L2 Dash Board details and repaired status report vide Ext. A,B,C & D respectively. The O.P No.4 also submitted examination-in-chief of Mr. Vikas Sharma. After closing evidence, the complainant, O.P No.2 and O.P No.4 submitted written argument.
- We have also heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.4. From evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the mobile set has been repaired and ready for delivery. The O.P No.2 took a plea that in spite of attempt to inform the complainant to receive the repaired set but the complainant did neither respond nor visit the Service Centre to receive the set visit the Service Centre to receive the repaired hand set. However the O.P No.2 did neither deliver the repaired hand set nor reply satisfactorily the specific date of delivery.
- However, the complainant though mentioned 9 (Nine) dates for his visit to the Service Centre but failed to show any reliable documentary evidence or convincing oral evidence of any independent witness to establish the alleged fact of visit. Hence, in our considered view the allegation regarding visit of 9 (Nine) occasions or any occasion is not established. On the other hand the O.P took plea of attempting to communicate the complainant by phone is also remain unestablished due to insufficient reliable evidence.
- Hence, in that perplexion this Forum by applying the of preponderance of probability held that the complainant did neither visit the Service Centre to receive the repaired mobile set nor the O.P communicated the complainant to receive the repaired set. Thus, fact remain established that the mobile set repaired with inordinate delay from date of handing over on 03-06-2013 to the date on 09-07-2013. As the inordinate delay of repairing is not explained with justified reasoning by the O.P No.2 and 4, so, we are of view that the said unjustified and inordinate delay of repairing the mobile set is deficiency of service. Hence, all the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with cost of the proceeding of a lump sum amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only and also to deliver repaired mobile set within 45 days from today. In default, interest @ 10% P.A. will fetch to the aforesaid awarded amount of RS. Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only and also liable to refund price of mobile set as per Ext.1 in place of repaired mobile set.
- With the above order, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 20th day of June, 2017.
