IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 103/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
29.06.2017 12.07.2017 14.06.2018
- Minor Sourin Mondal
Representated by Gurdian father
Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal
Of 50/5/5/1, Dr. Sundar Gopal
Dhar Lane, P.O. Khagra,
P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742103. …………… Complainant.
-vs-
- Jain Telecom
Proprietor Rahul Jain,
of 316, Netaji Road, P.O. Khagra,
P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad,
- Manager Gionee Care
Srijon Solution Berhampore,
Om Shinalaya Apartment,
Of 69/9, Pilkhana Road, Ranibagan,
P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin- 742101
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
- The Manager
Gionee India Pvt. Ltd.
E-9. Block No. B-1 Ground Floor,
Mohan Co- Operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road
New Delhi- 110044 …........... Opposite Parties.
Complainant In person ……… for Complainant
Ex-Parte ………………….……… for Opposite Party
Present : Sri Ashis Kumar Senapati …. ……… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainants, contending gross negligence, deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service towards the Complainants by the Opposite Parties.
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, Charger R – 41014834, in the name of his son from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 11.06.2017. But after purchasing the said Mobile Phone in issue the same was getting hang and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 as per instruction of the Opposite Party No. 1.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
But the Opposite Party No. 2 had charged a sum of Rs. 2,100/- only for repairing/updating the said Mobile Phone in question though the said Mobile Phone was within the warranty period and ultimately the Complainant had repaired/updated the same without any charges on request of the Opposite Party No. 1. After repairing/updating the said Mobile Phone in question the same further suddenly got switched off on 02.05.2017 and the Complainant failed to get the same switched on and the Complainant again went to the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 2 had further charged a sum of Rs. 4,017/- only to change the Main PCBA, 8 layer and Sub – PCBA, Antenna Board, 2 layer including the labour charges. The Complainant further went to the Opposite Party No. 1 to inform the matter on 02.05.2017 and the proprietor of the Opposite Party No. 1 asked to hand over the said Mobile Phone to him as he could personally look after the matter and the Complainant did the same.
The Complainant after the 02.05.2017 daily went to the Opposite Party No. 1 to get back the said repaired Mobile Phone but returned with no result. Ultimately the Complainant got return the said disputed Mobile Phone on 29.05.2017 with same problem which indicated that the Opposite Party No. 2 had done no repairing and/or replacement in the said Mobile Phone. The Complainant after getting back the said Mobile Phone from the Opposite Party No. 1 went to different Service centre for repairing the same but none could repair the same.
Thereafter the Complainant repeatedly requested for repairing and/or replace of the said Mobile Phone in question but the Opposite Parties neither replaced the said Mobile Phone nor repair the same what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against the Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
Despite service of the notice, the Opposite Party No. 3 (which is revealed from A/D returned) never appeared before the Forum in person and/or through their authorized representative/Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version on the date fixed on 10.08.2017 (Order No. 2) and so the instant case has been heard ex-parte against both the Opposite Party No. 3.
But after due service of the notice the Opposite Party No. 1 has separately appeared before the Forum and prayed time for filing the Written Version on 10.08.2017 and the Opposite Party No. 2 has appeared by filing a Vokalatnama on 04.09.2017 and also prayed time for submitting the Written Version but ultimately both Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 had failed to file the same within the statutory period for which the case has been heard ex – parte against both the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 on 09.11.2017 as on the Order No. 6.
But the fact remains that on 18.01.2018 (Order No. 8) the Opposite Party No. 1 has filed the Written Version but without any petition praying for vacating the Ex – parte Order against them and the said Written Version by opposite Party No. 1 be kept with the record but not yet accepted and for which this Written Version is not considered by the Forum at the time of passing the Final Order.
Moreover, at the time of hearing the argument on the date fixed on 28.05.2018, no Opposite parties were present on repeated calls till 01.00 pm. Thus the instant case had been heard ex-parte against all the Opposite Parties .
Point for Consideration
The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
Decision with Reasons
In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the Complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.
The main allegation of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties is that, in spite of entire payment, all the Opposite Parties had neglected and/or deficient to provide the proper services towards the Complainant.
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Complainant in person and perusing the material documents in record, it is manifestly evident that, the Complainant had purchased a Mobile Phone, Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, Charger R–41014834, in the name of his son from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 11.06.2017 for consideration value of Rs. 8,100/- only.
The Complainant alleged that after purchasing the said Mobile Phone in issue the same was getting hang within the warranty period and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No. 2 as per instruction of the Opposite Party No. 1.
The Complainant further alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 had charged a sum of Rs. 2,100/- only for repairing/updating the said Mobile Phone in question though the said Mobile Phone was within the warranty period and ultimately the Opposite Party No. 2 had repaired/updated the same without any charges on request of the Opposite Party No. 1 and delivered the same to the Complainant.
The record reveals that after repairing/updating the said Mobile Phone in question the same further suddenly got switched off on 02.05.2017
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
and the Complainant failed to get the same switched on and the Complainant again went to the Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 2 had further charged a sum of Rs. 4,017/- only to change the Main PCBA, 8 layer and Sub – PCBA, Antenna Board, 2 layer including the labour charges. The Complainant further went to the Opposite Party No. 1 to inform the matter on 02.05.2017 and the proprietor of the Opposite Party No. 1 asked to hand over the said Mobile Phone to him as he could personally look after the matter and the Complainant did the same.
The Complainant after the 02.05.2017, daily went to the Opposite Party No. 1 to get back the said repaired Mobile Phone but returned with no result. Ultimately the Complainant got return the said disputed Mobile Phone on 29.05.2017 with same problem which indicated that the Opposite Party No. 2 had done no repairing and/or replacement in the said Mobile Phone. The Complainant after getting back the said Mobile Phone from the Opposite Party No. 1 went to different Service centre for repairing the same but none could repair the same.
Manifestly it is revealed from the ‘Warranty Card’ of the said Mobile Phone in question that the spare parts of the said Mobile Phone which alleged to be defective and need to be repaired and/or replaced by the Opposite Party No. 2 has the warranty of 12 months and it is clearly evident from the photocopies of the document filed by the Complainant that the said spare parts was caused problem within the 12 months from the date of purchase (the Mobile was purchased on 11.06.2016 and the Job Card was issued on 02.05.2017). Thus the Complainant is entitled to get the benefit of the warranty provided by the Opposite Party No. 3.
Moreover, the fact remains that the case is heard Ex – parte against all the Opposite Parties and all the allegations made by the Complainant were never challenged by any of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
Whereas the fact remains that the case was decided to hear Ex – parte against all Opposite Parties on 09.11.2017 (Order No. 6) and thereafter the Opposite Party No. 1 had filed the Written Version on 18.01.2018 (Order No. 8) but without any petition for vacating the Order to hear the case Ex – Parte for which the Written Version is not consider at the time of hearing the argument. Furthermore, on the date of hearing the argument on 28.05.2018 (Order No. 11), no Opposite Parties was present even taken any steps on repeated calls till 01.00 pm.
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that all the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 & 3 jointly and severally is liable to repair the said Mobile Phone in issue in good condition without any repairing charges, as to satisfaction of the Complainant, and the Complainant shall have to deposit the said Mobile Phone, Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, in question towards the Opposite Party No. 1 and/or Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of this ‘Order’ and the Opposite Party No. 1 and/or Opposite Party No. 2 shall have to receive the same from the Complainant and after repairing the said Mobile Phone return back to the Complainant within one month from the date of depositing the said Mobile Phone. In default to repair the said Mobile Phone in question, the Opposite Party No. 1 & 3 jointly and severally is strictly liable to replace the said Mobile Phone in dispute with a new one of same model and same facilities.
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
Cont. ……….…. 8
= 8 =
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against all the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 1,500/- only payable by all Opposite parties jointly and severally within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Complainant shall have to deposit the said Mobile Phone, Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, in question towards the Opposite Party No. 1 and/or Opposite Party No. 2 within 15 days from the date of this ‘Order’ and the Opposite Party No. 1 and/or Opposite Party No. 2 shall have to receive the same from the Complainant
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally is directed to repair the said Mobile Phone in dispute, Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant and after repairing the said Mobile Phone return back to the Complainant within one month from the date of depositing the said Mobile Phone by the Complainant.
That failure to do the aforesaid ‘Order’ by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 jointly and severally is strictly liable to replace the said Mobile Phone in question, Gionee P 5 L (Black) 869813020485302, vide Battery No. B 0316020022359, with a new one of same model and same facilities within 45 days from the date of depositing the said Mobile Phone in issue by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties Ni. 1 and/or Opposite Party No. 2.
Cont. ……….…. 9
= 9 =
That all the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- only as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of two months from the date of this order, the default Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said default Opposite Parties in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
