DATE OF FILING : 18-02-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 19-03-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11-08-2014.
Shyam Pada Bera,
son of Gopal Chandra Bera,
residing at Jagacha Brahminpara, P.O. G.I.P. Colony,
P.S. Jagacha, District –Howrah.---------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
S.H. Mumtazuddin Times ( P ) Ltd.,
13 No. B.B.D. Bag ( East ),
Kolkata – 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Shyam Pada Bera, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,
1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to return the purchase price of the mobile set in question, to pay compensation and litigation costs for causing mental agony and harassment.
2. Brief facts of the case is that complainant bought one handset mobile with
touch screen facility duly manufactured by o.p. on 30-05-2013 on payment of Rs. 5,700/-. But since its purchase, the said set was giving trouble like given out too much heat etc. Complainant repeatedly requested the o.p. to change the same with a new one of other make but o.p. did not do anything fruitful. On 18-09-2013, the set became totally out of order and the complainant went to o.p.’s show room and requested them to exchange it. But they did not pay any heed to his request and ultimately on and from 28-10-2013, the set is lying totally useless without giving any service to the complainant. Even after repeated requests, complainant was not given any substitute mobile or purchase price of the set in question. And o.p.’s gross negligence in this regard caused severe harassment to the complainant both financially and physically. Being frustrated complainant filed this instant petition praying for the return of Rs. 11,400/-.
3. Notices were served. But they never appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully
gone through the complaint/ petition sworn on affidavit and noted its contents. In today’s world, mobile has got immense importance in daily life. Complainant purchased the same on payment of Rs. 5,700/- but did not get any positive result. O.P. not even gave any post-sale service to the complainant. It is not at all a luxury on the part of the complainant to file a case for such a small amount. It is also to be noted that even after receiving the notice of this Forum, o.p. did not appear and file any written version. So, it is crystal clear that o.p. has nothing to put forward in their favour. And the allegations of the complainant leveled against o.p. remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. So, we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. Accordingly the case succeeds on merit.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 80 of 2014 ( HDF 80 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.P.
That the o.p. is directed to refund Rs. 5,700/-, the cost of the mobile, to the complainant.
The o.p. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.
That the O.P. is directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 7,700/- to the complainant within one month from this date i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
