DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No 134 of 2015
Date of filing: 24.62015 Date of disposal: 19.01.2016
Complainant: Sanjay Mehta, S/o. Late Nalin Mehta, resident of AS/16, Vidyasagar Pally, Opp. Primary School, Benachity, Durgapur – 713 213, PS: Durgapur.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Proprietor/Manager of Rahul Mobile, Ghosh Market, 1st Floor, Benachity, Durgapur – 13, PS: Durgapur, Dealer of Best I.T. World (India) Pvt. Ltd.
2. Service Manager, Suman choudhury, Best I.T. World (India) Pvt. Ltd., 6B, Rameshwar Shaw Road Lane, Opp. The KMC Ladies Park, 1st, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 14.
3. Director, Best I.T. World (India) Pvt. Ltd., 83 Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross Road “A” Andheri East, Mumbai – 93.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Mr. Suman Chowdhury, Autho. Representative.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the ops as the ops did not replace the defective mobile phone purchased from the op-1 till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he is a primary school teacher and the op-1 is running business under the territorial jurisdiction of this ld. Forum with the op-2&3. The complainant purchased ‘i-ball’ mobile handset from op-1 on 21.5.2014, but since the date of purchase he is facing problem due to features i.e. camera, battery, display etc. and the mobile set is not functioning well for which the complainant visited the op-1 on the next date within the warranty and guarantee period., the op-1 received the hand set and delivered the same to the service centre - op-2 but the op-2 could not repair the said handset and for this reason another handset was given to the complainant by the op-1 on 06.01.2015. But the said set was of no value and in the said set also the complainant faced with the same problem and informed the matter to the op-1&2 and accordingly another handset was provided by the op-1 to the complainant on 12.02.2015, but unfortunately the said handset was also suffering from same problem and again the information was given to the op-1&2. At that moment the op-1 demanded a sum of Rs. 3,930=00 from the complainant, though the handset was within the warranty period and as the complainant did not pay the said amount to the op-1 the defective handset has not been replaced by it. Be it mentioned that the complainant also refused to take delivery of the similar nature hand set because the earlier handsets were suffering from several defects. Thereafter the petitioner verbally informed to the op-1 and op-2 on 28.4.2015 requesting to replace the said handset, but the ops have failed to give him any reply and for this reason the complainant had to approach before the CA & FBP, who settled the matter amicably by and between the parties wherein the op-2 committed and assured to replace a fresh mobile handset to the complainant, but the op-2 demanded Rs. 3,930=00 from the complainant. As the complainant did not pay the said amount till filing of this complaint the defective handset had not been replaced by the ops. Not only that, in this way the ops have violated the settlement dated 02.4.2015, which is an example of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service of the ops. The op-2 on 09.4.2015 by false assurance and misleading statement deceived and misled the complainant. So the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by the ops. Having no alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the ops to refund the amount of Rs. 4,300=00 as paid by him towards cost of the mobile handset along with interest @12% per annum, compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 50,000=00 due to mental agony, tension and harassment etc.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the ops by filing written version contending that they are ready to provide the complainant the demanded model for which the complainant is liable to pay differential amount of Rs. 3,930=00, but as the complainant did not pay the said amount the ops could not replace the defective mobile till date. Therefore the demand of the complainant is unreasonable and not acceptable by the ops because the complainant demanded some features which the said set is unable to provide and according to the ops if the complainant wants to enjoy more facilities in the mobile handset he has to purchase higher range mobile set in which the complainant’s need will be fulfilled. But without purchasing the higher range mobile the complainant wants more facilities in the purchased handset where it has been specifically mentioned under the specification of the purchased handset that beyond the mentioned specification nothing will be available from the said handset. For showing their good gesture the ops have replaced the defective handset of the complainant for twice but the complainant is not satisfied with the said arrangement. The ops have denied that they have provided low valued handset to the complainant as alleged. As the ops are always ready to provide proper service to the complainant so that he can enjoy all the facilities, hence question of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service does not arise. As the complainant has refused for making payment of the differential amount, hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this ld. Forum as sought for. According to the ops as the complaint is devoid of any merit the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
Both parties have filed some papers and documents supporting their own averments. We have carefully perused the record as well as the papers and documents filed by the parties and heard argument at length advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of the ops. Admittedly the complainant purchased one mobile handset being i-ball model no. Andy Genius, 3.5 KKE from the op-1 on 21.5.2014 by making payment of Rs. 4,300=00 towards the cost of the mobile handset. The allegation of the complainant is that since its purchase the said handset was suffering from several defects i.e. camera, battery, display etc. For this reason he approached before the op-1 stating the said problem and the op-1 accordingly delivered the said set to the op-2 for necessary repair. As the op-2 could not repair the problem the complainant was given another new handset on 06.01.2015 of same model and within similar price. But admittedly the said set also was suffering from same defects and problem and accordingly the op-1&2 was intimated by the complainant about the problems and again the said handset was replaced by the op-1 with a new and similar one. On third occasion also the said mobile handset was suffering from some defects and at this juncture while the complainant intimated the problem to the ops they demanded Rs. 3,930=00 from him though the said handset was within warranty period. According to the complainant the service and activity of the ops suffer from deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice because on every occasions they have provided defective handset and while on the third occasion the ops were intimate by him they demanded a hefty amount from him for removal of problem from the said handset. As the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by the ops, hence this complaint.
The contention of the ops is that they have already showed their good gesture and replaced the defective handset on two occasions. Further case of the ops is that at the time of purchasing the mobile handset, on the box entire specifications has been mentioned of the said set i.e. the complainant is entitled to enjoy from he said set, but the complainant needs more facility from the said handset which the said set did not match. As the need of the complainant and the specifications of the said mobile set do not match, hence such problem has been occurred. For this reason the complainant was requested for making payment of further amount of Rs. 3,930=00 so that the ops can supply him a higher range mobile in which the complainant will get all the facilities as he wants. But as the complainant did not pay the differential amount the grievance of the complainant could not be redressed by the ops. It is seen by us that before coming to this Forum the complainant approached before the CA & FBP wherein steps were taken by the said Department through mediation to redress the grievance of the complainant. On 02.4.2015 the note and order of CA & FBP show that the matter was thoroughly discussed and amicably settled by and between the parties. The op filed a representation stating that they will replace the handset on the will of the complainant and the existing defective handset, as alleged by the complainant will be returned to the ops. But inspite of such order the dispute could not be resolved. On 20.4.2015 the complainant wrote a letter to the op-1 stating the problem of his handset and through that letter it was also intimated by him that he is not agree to make any further payment as sought for by the op to the tune of Rs. 3,930=00 and prayer was made by the complainant to repair his defective mobile handset as early as possible. It is also seen by us on 02.4.2015 on behalf of op-2&3 one Service Manager, namely, Suman Chowdhury was present before the AD, CA & FBP, Durgapur, Burdwan where he filed an objection against the complaint filed by the complainant before the office of the CA & FBP wherein it is stated that ‘we agree that the performance Sri Sanjay Mehta is expecting from our mobile set; we are unable to serve him the same within the price range. Because we written all the features on the box pack of the product. For example, this handset is with 1250 mAh battery, 256MB RAM. It cannot run properly with heavy memory games installed in it by the complainant and for this reason the mobile became slow and sometimes it is hanging. As we always honour our customers, we replaced his mobile handset twice without finding any problem in it. Sri Mehta has purchased i-ball Andi Genius, 3.5 KKE on 21.5.2014; we replaced this mobile with another handset of i-ball Andi 3.5 KKE Genius on 06.01.2015. Again to satisfy him we replaced his handset with higher model i-ball Andi 4ARC on 12.02.2015 without taking any difference amount. Still we are ready to replace his mobile handset with any one of our existing models of his choice in similar range. If Sri Mehta agrees to take the replacement, then we can settle this matter on 09.4.2015 between 11 am to 4 pm at our Durgapur Service Center. We can select any other date also for this settlement as convenient to Sri Sanjay Mehta.’ It is submitted by the ops that till date the complainant did not turn up at the service centre of the ops for replacement of his mobile or settle the matter with the ops. Not only that during hearing the complainant was also not present before this ld. Forum, though his ld. Counsel was present. The ops have mentioned that they have taken every possible steps for redressal of the grievance of the complainant but if the purchaser - complainant does not turn up before them they are not in a position to mitigate his dispute. We have noticed that the ops have taken every step for redressal of the grievance of the complainant by making replacement of the defective handset on two occasions and even at present also they are ready to replace his mobile handset with a new one of the similar features and range. Therefore, we are constraint to hold that there was deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on behalf of the ops. So in our view the complainant is not at all entitled to get the amount of compensation as sought for. The complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile handset to the tune of Rs. 4,300=00 from the ops but in this respect also the complainant is not at all entitled to get refund of the said amount because the ops are always ready to replace with a new similar one in respect of features and range. As the complainant did not turn up, the ops are not in a position to perform their own duties.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed in part on contest without any cost. Complainant is directed to approach before the ops for replacement of the mobile handset with a new and similar one and the said handset shall be with the same specifications and range. The ops are directed to replace the defective mobile handset within a period of 30 days from the date of approach of the complainant. Be it mentioned that for replacement, the complainant is also directed to submit the defective mobile handset before the ops prior to taking the new mobile handset from the ops. With the above-mentioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provision of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
