West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/12/2016

Minor Tithi Sen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor of Agarwal Computer and Other - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Kapot Kumar Chattapadhyay

and

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

 

   

Complaint Case No.12/2016

                                                        

Tithi Sen (minor), D/o-Bidyut Kumar Sen….………Complainant

Versus

Agarwal Computer, Malancha, Kharagpur………pp. Party.

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Susanta Kumar Jana, Advocate.         

 

 

Decided on: -26/04/2016

                               

ORDER

   Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member- The case of the complainant in a nut shell is that the complainant is a minor and she is a student of class-IX of central school, IIT, Kharagpur and for the urgent need and for the purpose of the help of education programme, the father of the minor complainant  purchased a mobile phone in the name of the minor complainant alongwith flip cover out of which cost of the phone of Rs.6,800/- (Micromax Model A-106, unit-2) of Rs.6,900/-M IMEI No.911345006250481, S IMEI No. 911345006750985, color grey.

It is contended by the complainant that at the time of purchasing mobile the O.P. No.1 advised the complainant if any problem arises during the warranty period she can meet the service centre of the O.P. No.1.

The complainant states that within the warranty period, the hand set was not working properly and according to the advice of the O.P. No.1, the complainant 

Contd……………….P/2

 

 

( 2 )

met the service centre of O.P. No.1 i.e. O.P.No.2 and submitted the mobile set on 26/08/2015 under job sheet No.E03469-0815-18830805. The complainant received the mobile set from O.P. No.2 the service centre on 23/09/2015 and again some problem arose and the complainant again submitted the mobile set to O.P. No.2 on 24/09/2015 under job sheet E030-469-0915-19370503.

Again on 17/10/2015 the complainant received the Mobile Set and surprisingly found that the internal storage (ROM) capacity of the mobile set is converted into 4GB in place of 8GB. The complainant again submitted the mobile set on 26/10/2015 and received on 17/11/2015. But at the time of receiving the mobile set the complainant found the same problem alongwith damaged hand set back cover. The complainant then and then submitted the mobile set under job sheet No. E030469-1115-20303167 the O.P. No.2 and till then   the mobile set is lying with the O.P. No.2, i.e. Micromax Service Centre, M/S-Belief, Malancha Road, Kharagpur.

Having no other way the uncle of the minor complainant sent a mail to the O.P. No.3.

Lastly on 28/12/2015 the complainant requested the O.P. No.2 to change the mobile set or to pay the value of mobile set. But they refused the request of the complainant on the plea that the warranty period is over. The complainant alleged that the O.Ps. intentionally harassed and cheated the complainant.

The complainant contended that the O.P.No.1 is the sale shop of Micromax mobile. O.P. No.2 is the service centre and the O.P. No.3 is the head office of micromax. The complainant alleged that the O.Ps. are dealing business jointly and they have broken their one year warranty rules and regulation. The  O.Ps. are jointly responsible for their act and services. The complainant states that she purchased the mobile for the help of educational programming but inspite of help she has been harassed by the O.Ps. and alleged that there is deficiency of service from the part of the O.Ps. The complainant also gets mental and physical suffering. The complainant therefore prays before the Forum to direct the O.Ps. to change the mobile set and also prays for compensation  and cost of damages for deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

            O.P. No.2 has contested the case by filing written objection O.P. No.1 though appeared but did not file any written objection and O.P. No.3 did not appeared  and such the case was ordered to be heard exparte against O.P. Nos.1 and 3.

                                                                        Contd……………….P/3

 

( 3 )

In his written objection the O.P. No.2  states that the O.P. No.2 repaired and delivered the mobile set 23/09/2015 and the complainant received the same on proper query. The O.P. No.2 alleged that on the next date i.e. on 24/09/2015 again the complainant deposited the same after malhandling the mobile set and the O.P. No.2 with full care delivered and discharged the liabilities of the said mobile phone on 17/10/2015 and again malhandling the mobile the complainant again submitted the hand set on 26/10/2015 and on 17/11/2015 and the complainant received the same. There after the O.P. No.2. made a request to the Micromax Company to  issue a new handset for the complainant and  the complainant also agreed to change her mobile phone. The O.P. No.2 states that in the month of January, the Micromax Company send a new mobile phone and O.P. No.2 informed the complainant to received the same. The complainant appeared and demanded to issue a Box pack of mobile set and again the O.P. No.2 informed the Company and lastly on 02/02/2016. The company issued a box pack handset and the O.P. No.2 informed the complainant for receiving the same. In support of his said case, the O.P. No.2 filed some documents of phone call information on 09/02/2016 and 10/02/2016 in the month of January 2016 and also submitted the job sheet dated 08/01/2016 and 24/09/2015.

The O.P. No.2 has contended that the complainant has falsely filed this case without reason and O.P. No.2 is not liable or responsible for deficiency in service and prays for rejection of this case.

Points for decision

1)Whether O.Ps. have deficiency of service within the meaning of sec-2(i)(g) read with sec.2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act  ?

2)Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs, as prayed for ?  

   

                Decisions with reasons

                                  Both the points are taken up for discussion and consideration.

             Ld. Advocate for complainant made his argument. The Ld. Advocate argued that the O.Ps. are jointly responsible for deficiency of service as they have  intentionally harassed the complainant and for the act of the O.Ps. the complainant has been deposited mobile service as she purchased the mobile for the help of educational programming.  The Ld. Advocate for the complainant also argued that the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical suffering and prayed before the Forum for changing of mobile set and compensation and also prayed for damages for mental agony.

Contd……………….P/4

 

( 4 )

                 As against this O.Ps. case is that the complainant was never deprived by the O.Ps.  That according to the complaint at the time of purchasing the mobile set, the O.P. No. 1 advised the complainant that whenever any problem arises within the warranty period, the complainant may meet the service centre O.P. No.1 for advise. Ld. Advocate for the O.P. No.2 argued that whenever the mobile set of the complainant was not working properly, the O.P. No.2 made repair  and the complainant received the same in query and last of all when the complainant requested to the O.P. No.2 for new hand set the O.P. No.2 informed the matter to the Micromax Company i.e. O.P. No.1 for new hand  and lastly on 02/02/2016 the O.P. No.1 Micromax Company issued a box pack hand set and informed the matter to the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.2 informed the complainant for receiving the same but the complainant falsely denied to accept and filed this case without reason. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the O.P. No.2 properly behaved with the complainant and there is no such deficiency in service on the point of the O.P. No.2 and in this regard O.P. No.2 filed some Xerox copy of documents which  he submitted before the Ld. Forum on 25/04/2016 by a put up petition. Copy could not served and that has been kept with the record.

In the above facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the above discussion it is held that the complainant case deserves to be allowed.   

Hence, it is,

                    Ordered,

        that the complaint case no.12/2016 is succeed in part on contest against the O.P. No.2 and exparte against O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 with cost.

O.P. No.2 the Service Centre is directed to issue box packed mobile of same model to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

O.P. No.1 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this order.

Let copies of the order be supplied free of cost.

           Dictated & Corrected by me

                           Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                      Member                                       Member                                       President                                                                                                  District Forum                                                                                    District Forum

             Paschim Medinipur                                                                           Paschim Medinipur