Hon'ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President
This case arises out of a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 whereby the Complainant stated that on 09.08.18, he purchased a new Mobile set being Model No.J-701 of Samsung Company at Rs.10,990/- from OP No.2. On 12.08.18, when the said Mobile set was being charged, there was a sudden burst in the set. As a result, the said Mobile set and the SIM Card got damaged. On the next day, i.e. on 13.09.18, the Complainant went to OP No.2 and narrated the incident, who then sent him to Op No.1 i.e. Service Centre. However, on 14.08.18, O.P. No.1 got that Mobile set with all its accessories with full box (Annexure “B”). As the Complainant did not get any relief despite several correspondences with the Ops, he lodged a written complaint with Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar Regional Office, where OP No.1 appeared for mediation, but no solution could be arrived at. According to the Complainant, the Mobile set was within full warranty period on the date when it got damaged. So, the Complainant alleged about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and ultimately filed this case praying for several reliefs as stated in the complaint.
Be it noted here, Op No.1 appeared in this case but subsequently, did not file any written version and contested the case. Op No.2 also did not appear.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 and 2.
Here in this case, the Complainant claimed to have purchased a Mobile set from OP No.2 and subsequently, alleged that he did not get required service from Ops when the said Mobile set got damaged. The Complainant is, no doubt, a consumer within the term as defined under CP Act, 1986.
The Complainant and both the Ops are also the residents within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of the District Forum. Thus, these points are disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 and 4.
In order to substantiate his case, the Complainant filed written evidence and also a number of documents viz. Cash Memo (Annexure “A”), Acknowledgement of Service Request ( Annexure “B”), Copy of Note-Sheet of Complaint Index No. 1356/81/C/CC/18-19 of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar Regional Office (Annexure “C”). This apart, the Complainant also filed written argument stating his case and also alleged about the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and finally he claimed for an order for replacement of the said Mobile set with a new one or refund of consideration price of Rs.10,990/-. He also prays for Rs.10,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.5,000/- as deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for litigation cost.
Annexure “A “reveals that the Complainant bought one Samsung made Mobile -Model No.J-701 at a cost of Rs.10,990/- from Chitta Ranjan PCO, Cooch Behar on 09.08.18. Annexure “B “ is found to be an acknowledgement of Service Request for the said Mobile, which was purchased on 08.09.18. The IMEI No. of the said Mobile was 354636/09/955289/8. It has been made clear by Annexure “B “ that the said Mobile set was within full warranty period. From Annexure “C “, it is found that the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Cooch Behar Regional Office, where OP No.1 appeared. From the Note Sheet, it is also found that Op No.1 had contended that the said Mobile set got damaged due to high voltage and, therefore, the set became out of warranty and the charge has to be paid for its repair. In such circumstances, the matter could not be solved on mediation.
So, from all these and also the evidence of the Complainant, it is quite clear that the Complainant had purchased the Mobile set in question, and within a couple of days after its purchase, it got damaged and subsequently, when the matter was taken up with the Ops, the said Mobile set was not repaired. Neither of the Ops came before this Forum to rebut the contention of the Complainant. As the said Mobile set was within full warranty period and Complainant could not use the same, we are of the opinion that he has a very good ground to approach before this Forum for getting the desired reliefs. These two points are accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant.
Therefore,
it is hereby ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte with cost.
The Ops are directed either to give a new Mobile set to the Complainant in place of the Mobile set, which was originally purchased by him, or to refund the cost of the said Mobile set of Rs.10,990/- to the Complainant. This apart, Ops are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards deficiency in service and mental pain and agony. Ops are also to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
If the aforesaid order is not complied within 30 days from the date of this order, the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the entire awarded sum for a period until realization. Complainant shall also be at liberty to execute the said order in accordance with law.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
