Order-12.
Date-29/07/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one tablet Model A-300 GABA No.911200300582123 with Antivirus Loading vide Cash Memo No.15396 dated 02-08-2014 for Rs.14,995/- from OP and the Tablet set carries a warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase and complainant purchased it for complainant’s study purpose. But after purchase on use the aforesaid set developed defects after 4 days from the date of purchase when complainant went to the OP along with the tablet on 27-10-2014 OP kept the tablet set and issued a job sheet No.6979 dated 27-10-2014. Thereafter on 03-11-2014 OP informed the complainant for the collection of the Tablet set. Accordingly, complainant went to the OP’s shop for collection of the set but complainant subsequently found a crack developed on the one edge in the tablet and at the same time tablet was not working. So, complainant raised objection for the same in reply OP told the complainant to accept the tablet and come back on 05-11-2014 when OP will exchange against new tablet set. But from 05-11-2014 complainant ran after to OP for exchange of tablet but in vain, rather on 17-01-2015 OP advised the complainant to deposit the tablet set for further repairing and complainant deposited the set again and OP issued job sheet but after 10 days when OP asked the complainant for collection of Tablet, complainant found again the tablet was not working. Complainant drew the matter under attention to the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Kolkata Central Regional Office for redressal the issue vide letter dated 13-03-2015, and he made his best efforts to solve the dispute but mediation failed and he advised the complainant to file the complaint before proper Forum for redressal. Accordingly for deficiency and negligent in service and adopting unfair trade practice complainant has filed this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand on receipt of the summon OP appeared through their agent Lakshmi Das and submitted that there was no problem in the said set but it is the psychological problem of the customer. In fact, complainant is not interested to use this product for which she has prayed for exchange of the same but there was no ground for any exchange and the table or the set in question is of good quality having a good product and prayed for decided the matter accordingly.
Decision with Reasons
After considering the complaint and the written version it is found that it is undisputed and admitted fact that the complainant purchased the said set. Further from the document it is found that after purchase just within 4 days complainant faced trouble to use the said set and that was deposited to the OP, OP issued job sheet and that was repaired. Subsequently, again the said set was found not functioning and that was further deposited. Further it was repaired again but further defect was detected that was also cured and thereafter, it was found not working.
After considering the said fact it is clear that there is warranty in respect of the said set when admittedly it was purchased on 02-08-2014 then warranty period will end on 01-08-2015 but within 4 days from the date of purchase this complainant failed to use it and one after another defect was detected that was cured and ultimately after last repair made by the OP the phone set is found blind. Invariably, if there is no manufacturing defect, the complainant as purchaser can use it without any interruption. OP has failed to prove their defence by any cogent evidence or by any document that the present product has no manufacturing defect. No doubt company is a well-known worst company for which the present OP has become a dealer to sell it and he is the service provider of the said set on behalf of the company but as service provider and dealer also he failed to produce any such sort of certificate on the part of the company that after inspection company Engineers issued such certificate that there was no manufacturing defect. Invariably, for that reason a negative presumption can easily be drawn against the OP’s activities as dealers in respect of the case. Another factor is that a customer must not have to loiter at the premises of the service centre or the dealer shop after purchasing a simple mobile because mobile is required for daily need by any person for the purpose of communication and some other purpose and its requirement is a part of daily life of any person and after purchasing a mobile if any customer shall have to loiter in the service centre and the dealer shop then it is clear that the customers at large shall have to surrender the mobiles what they have purchased.
Fact remains at the time of sale of any goods particularly electronics goods or laptop or mobile etc. the seller must be satisfied that the item which is being sold to the customer is free from any manufacturing defect. When in the present case the OP is not only the dealer but also the service centre of the company but no such certificate has been produced by the OP from the manufacturer that on inspection no manufacturing defect was found but in this case it is proved that OP is in a habit to sell such type of items which are of different companies as seller and service centre and it is their business to repair it one after another month till warranty period covers and so long the warranty period continues they somehow or otherwise repair the goods and handover it and customer is being harassed day to day because just after receipt within one or two days again he or she shall have to face same problem and in this case complainant has no doubt enjoyed such painful experience.
Truth is that OP by filing written statement in last part submitted with sentences, “we honoured decisions of Lord every time and cannot disobey in future too. Now decision making of this case depends upon Hon’ble Sir”. If we read this prayer then it is clear that OP, S.H. Mumtazuddin is well-known to this Forum because in so many cases they appeared before this forum and in so many cases they honoured and they have paid it so, lastly they have surrendered for the decision of this Forum and willing to obey order as they have nothing to say more. In fact, S.H. Mumtazuddin Time Pvt. Ltd. of Radhabazar Street, Kolkata is the seller of all kind of products of different companies – known and unknown, and fact remains they are selling worthless quality item of different companies and they are very much famous for that and people at large being allured by their advertisement and for keeping different type of items of different companies customers into the shop and purchases items being allured by their sweet behaviour, catchy words and touchy gifts and in this case also gift was delivered and it is their business tactics. May be someone is confused why these sentences are expressed, fact remains in the receipt not only there is stamp “paid” but there is also a stamp “gift delivered”. If actually the item mobile was of a company of international world standard, in that case no company shall have to give any gift. But Mumtazuddin always gives gift and that is their business tactics to allure the customers and in this case also complainant purchased items being allured that he shall get a gift because it is customer’s psychology whether against a purchase gift shall be offered by the seller or not and that psychological part of the consumer no doubt ultimately deceive him or herself which is proved from the fact that there is some value of the gift why a seller shall have to handover a gift if it is not printed in the item or goods by the manufacturing company and in this case there is no such a note that in the said item box gift is offered by the company. In the result, present case gift is given by the Mumtazuddin for selling damaged articles, defective articles when they are known for that. In the meantime within 2 last two years about 15 to 20 cases already disposed OP complied the order and in future they shall have to comply it as submitted. Considering all the above facts it is clear that the defective item was sold to the complainant and knowing fully well that if he sells 1000 defective items with gifts to different customers in very negligible number cases may be filed but even then by deceiving the customers he already acquired a good capital. So, out of that he is willing to pay compensation 10 to 12 etc. and they are ready for that and that is the business tactics of the OP, so in the present case there is no defence, so OP has not challenged the allegation of the complainant but at best they have prayed before this Forum(Lord) to decide the matter and the result what they shall have to receive, shall have to comply. Such sort of prayer is generally not found in any case where against OP any complaint has been filed but they are contesting but only this Mumtazuddn ultimately surrendered before this Forum knowing fully well their previous activities which is well-known to this Forum and in the present case that matter has been expressed in the written version of the OP.
In the light of the above observation and also relying upon the entire decision we are convinced to hold that there is good ground to allow the complaint to redress the complainant against OP who is in a habit of continue the business that is deceitful manner of trade.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.2,500/- against the OP.
OP is hereby directed to refund the entire price amount of Tablet that is Rs.14,995/- and also for harassing and causing mental pain and agony to the complainant and for adopting such unfair practice OP shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- that means OP shall have to pay Rs.22,495/- in total within one month from the date of this order to the complainant and if the Tablet is in the possession of the complainant in that case complainant shall have to deposit and hand over the same to the OP on the date of payment of that amount.
If OP fails to comply the order within the stipulated time in that case OP shall have to pay penal damages at the rate ofRs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that OP is reluctant to comply the order and disobeys the Forum’s order in that case penal proceeding u/s.25 read with Section of the C.P. Act shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
