C.F. CASE No.                     : CC/11/107                                                                                                   

COMPLAINANT                 :            Subhankar Das

                                                S/o Srish Ch. Das

                                                Dignagar Station Para,

                                                P.O. Dignagar, P.S. Kotwali,

                                                Dist. Nadia, Pin 741401

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs:   1)      Proprietor Sree Durga India Mobile

                                                            15, R.N. Tagore Road,

                                                            Challenge More, Krishnagar, Nadia

                                                            Pin 741101

2. Proprietor

NOKIA Care

Mallick Agency,

27, M.M. Ghosh Street (Near Judges Court)

Mallick Market,

Krishnagar, Pin 741101,

Dist. Nadia

PRESENT                               : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY,         PRESIDENT

        : SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR,  MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                :   28^th September, 2012

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Nokia mobile set on 24.01.11 from the OP No. 1, Sree Durga India Mobile and it was observed that since very beginning the mobile set was not working properly.  So he met the OP No. 1 and informed him also.  The OP No. 1 sent him to the OP No. 2 for repairing the same as he was the authorized service centre of Nokia Care.  The OP No. 2 repaired it and delivered him on 18.06.11, but within a few days the mobile became defective.  He then and there met the OP No. 2, who intimated that it would not be repaired as it had manufacturing defect.  He thereafter, met the OP No. 1 and informed him about this, who did not take any step in this respect.  So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

            The OP No. 1 has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that he, Moni Chowdhury is not at all the proprietor of Sree Durga Mobile India Mobile.  Besides this, his original name is Prodip Chowdhury and Moni is his nick name.  So no question of purchasing the mobile set from him does arise.  He has denied all the statements made in the petition of complaint against him as he is not the owner of the OP No. 1, mobile shop.  So the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against him and the case is liable to be dismissed against him also.

            OP No. 2 has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that the case is bad for defect of parties as he has no relation with the complainant in this case.  He also submits that the complainant never produced the defect mobile set to him for repairing and no transaction took place between them on 18.06.11.  The disputed set was brought before him by one Rina Das and after examining it he found it defective due to mishandling of the set.  Thereafter, he repaired the same and Rina Das being satisfied left his shop-room with the mobile set.  He never said to the complainant that the set had manufacturing defect which could not be repaired.  This statement is not at all correct.  So the complainant has no cause of action against him and the case is liable to be dismissed also.

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1:         Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.

            On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the oral and documentary evidences it is available on record that this complainant Subhankar Das purchased a Nokia mobile set on 24.01.11 from Sree Durga India Mobile at a price of Rs. 6,550/- vide ‘Annexure – 1’.    Complainant’s specific allegation is that within a short time the set became defective and as per advice of OP No. 1, he met the OP No. 2 who repaired it also.  But subsequently, the mobile set became defective and now it is out of use.  In the written version filed by the OP No. 1 it is stated that Sri Moni Chowdhury alias Prodip Chowdhury is not the owner of Sree Durga India Mobile.  But from the copy of the notice it is available that one Moni Chowdhury received the notice by signing his name and also putting seal of Sree Durga India Mobile, Krishnagar, Nadia on 11.01.12.  So from this copy of the notice, it is clear to us that Moni Chowdhury is the owner cum proprietor of Sree Durga India Mobile as he signed on the copy of the notice.  There is no denial by him that he did not sign on this notice.  Only in his evidence it is stated that he did not sign on the copy of the notice.  From the written version filed by the OP No. 1 it is available that he repaired the mobile set produced before him by one Rina Das.  But the fact is that the mobile set repaired by him actually was purchased by the complainant from the OP No. 1 vide ‘Annexure – 1’.  ‘Annexure – 2’ is the document which shows that the OP No. 2 repaired it after receiving Rs. 970/-.

            Therefore, after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers on both sides and on a careful perusal of both the oral and the documentary evidences laid by the parties, it is established that the complainant purchased the mobile set from Sree Durga India Mobile on 24.01.11 at a price of Rs. 6,550/-.  It is also established that Sri Moni Chowdhury is the proprietor of Sree Durga India Mobile.  From the documents it is also established that the mobile set became defective and it was repaired by the OP No. 2 on 18.06.11 at a cost of Rs. 970/- which is also admitted by the OP No. 2 in the written version.  The complainant has filed oral evidences from which it is established that the mobile set is defective and at present he cannot use it.  OP No. 1 is the seller of the mobile set and OP No. 2 is the authorized service centre for repairing the same.  But the case of the complainant is that the mobile set is out of order and the OP No. 1 declined to repair the same.  The OP No. 1 cannot avoid his liability regarding repair of the mobile set after selling it to the customer / consumer complainant.  It is his duty to render proper service to the consumer who produced the mobile set for repair due to nonfunctioning of the same.  From the evidences it is established that the mobile set practically has inherent defect.  So we hold that this is the liability of both the OP No. 1 & 2 to remove the said defect or to supply a new one to the complainant.  But they failed to discharge their duties. 

In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case and so he is not entitled to get a decree as prayed for.  In result the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/11/107 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs.  The complainant is entitled to get a decree for Rs. 6,550/- (the cost of the mobile set) plus Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental harassment caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- i.e., in total Rs. 9,550/- against the OPs who are directed jointly and severally to make payment of the decretal dues to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.