BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.1 is an Authorized Service Centre of the Opposite Party No.2 which is the manufacturer of Complainant’s Mobile Handset. Complainant who is an unemployed ,needy student, purchased the said mobile phone for the purpose of study in the competitive examination.

2. Unfortunately the Touch Screen Panel of the said Mobile Phone got cracked for which the Complainant communicated with the Op No.2 and as per it’s advice visited the Authorized Service Centre of the Op No.1 on 27.12.2018 to check the problem in Mobile Handset.

3. Being convinced and getting assurance for replacement/repair of the damaged Touch Screen shortly from the Op No.1, the Petitioner gave the Mobile Handset to Op No.1 on 27.12.2018. After One and a Half Months, the Ops informed that the same configured Mobile Handset Touch Screen is not available and therefore, suggested to change the configuration of existing Mobile Handset instead of the Touch Screen which the Complainant denied due to unbearable unnecessary charges and informed the Ops to agree for waiting another One and a Half Month for the Change/Repair of the said damaged Touch Screen although the Ops did not quote the tentative cost to replace/repair due to unavailability of the item. Therefore, the Complainant categorically instructed the Ops to inform about the expenses during availability of the item and replace/repair the Touch Screen only after taking prior approval.

4. But, the Ops without any intimation and without taking any prior approval/consent for the expenses from the Complainant, replaced the damaged Touch Screen at a cost of Rs.2,160.00 and informed to take delivery in the first week of March 2019.

5. The Complainant also further states, due to exorbitant, illegal and unlawful charge by Ops, the Complainant met Op No.1 several times with a request to either charge reasonably or return the said handset as it was condition but, the Op No.1 neither charged actually/rationally nor returned the said Mobile Handset.

6. Therefore, the Complainant given written representation before the Consumer Affairs Department (Govt. of West Bengal) where only OPs were absent in mediation on 02.05.2019. Henceforth, the mediation proceeding has dropped by the department by drawing a Mediation Report dated: 29.05.2019 with a view to prefer the complaint by the unsatisfied complainant before this Commission. Again the Complainant met the Op No.1 on 15.03.2020 with a request for solution but, neither the Op No.1 raised any rational Bill nor returned the Mobile Handset as previous condition.

7. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 07.03.2019 when the OP No.1 replaced the Touch Screen without taking consent for the expenses and demanded the exorbitant charges from the Complainant by harassing unnecessarily.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay Compensation of Rs.10,000.00 by OPs for loss of work, harassment, mental torture and agony.

2. To direct the Ops for returning the Mobile Handset by changing Display Touch Screen with charging actual cost of Display Screen or return the said Mobile Handset as per the previous actual condition.

3. To pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

8. Notices were duly served upon the Op No(s).1 & 2 but, they preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against them.

9.             Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

10. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Affidavit of the Complainant along with all other documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the OPs, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Op No(s).1 is an Authorized Service Centre of the Op No.2 which is a Manufacturing Company of Mobile Handset. It is always the duty of the Service Provider to duly communicate and take prior approval from the Complainant for the expenses incurred on its behalf. The Service Provider has no authority to whimsically charge any amount without taking consent/approval from the customer whereas the customer categorically instructed the Service Provider to inform about the expenses during availability of the item and replace/repair the item only after taking prior approval. Moreover, it is also the duty of the Service Provider to issue Bill/Invoice in respect of it’s valuable service with mentioning the details so that the customer can clearly understand. But, it is evident from the Bill No.542, dated: 27.12.2018, the Op No.1 did not mention anything to that effect.. 

5. Similarly, the OP No.2 being a Manufacturer of Mobile Handset has the duty to duly communicate the customer about the cost/price of Spare Parts when it is available in the market. Moreover, when the Manufacturer authorizes a Service Centre to provide the service for and on its’ behalf to the customer, it should have a responsibility on the act of its’ agent i.e. the Service Provider.

6. Therefore, it clearly transpires from the above, there are elements of negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by both the OPs.

7. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, neither the complainant has mentioned any specific amount what will be the reasonable cost/expenses for repairing/replacing the said Touch Screen, nor this Commission has any technicality to determine the actual cost/expenses for the same.

However, Op No.1 and 2 can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, unfair trade practice, harassment and deficiency in service. So, we think it would be just and proper if we direct the OP No.1 & 2 ,who are jointly or severally liable, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.1000.00 as litigation costs and to return the said Mobile Handset as it was in previous condition , alternatively if fail to return, to pay its purchase value Rs.8950/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the OP No.1 & 2, jointly or severally will have to pay @ Rs.50.00 per diem (day) in addition to the said amount for non-compliance of order from the date of this order.

8.  
9. Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

10.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds in part.

Hence, it is

          O R D E R E D

That the CC-09 of 2021 be and the same is allowed ex-pate     against OP Nos.1 & 2.

The OP No.1 & 2, who are jointly or severally liable, are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.1000.00 as litigation costs and to return the said Mobile Handset as it was in previous condition , alternatively if fail to return, to pay its purchase value Rs.8950/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the OP No.1 & 2, jointly or severally will have to pay @ Rs.50.00 per diem (day) in addition to the said amount for non-compliance of order from the date of this order.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the Complainant free of cost.