Order-17.

Date-30/10/015.

In this complaint Complainant  Sakil Aktharby filing this complaint has submitted that op no.1 is the seller of mobile phone, op no.2 is the manufacturer or marketing agent of op no.1, and op no.3 is authorized Service Provider of the Haier Mobile Model No. CG220.Op No.4 is also service provider of Haier Mobile phone.

Complainant purchased one mobile phone Model No. Haier CG220 from op no.1 vide Invoice No. 15096 dated 30.08.2013 for Rs. 2,000/- from op no.1 and mobile phone carries warranty for one year.On very next day from the date of purchase the said mobile developed defect and problems and complainant lodged complain to op no.2 on 28.07.2014 through e-mail and also made e-mail chatting for knowing the whereabouts of Service Centre at Kolkata.In the course of the chatting complainant came to know that the name of op nos.3 & 4 and as per advise of op no.2, complainant visited the office of op no.4 for solving the problem of mobile phone but in vain.But complainant repeatedly visited to op nos. 3 & 4 on and from 28.07.2014 to 22.08.2014 for repairing of the said phone but no result.op no.4 told the complainant that the mobile phone cannot be repaired as the phone has a manufacturing defect and thereafter complainant informed the facts to op no.2 on 25.09.2014 by Speed Post requesting to take necessary step for repairing to solve the problem but op no.2 remained silent.

Thereafter complainant again sent a letter dated 18.09.2014 to op no.2 along with the copies of all e-mails and e-mails chatting print outs per Speed Post etc. which was duly received by the ops but no result is yet received from the ops by the complainant and for which complainant has been harassing by the op and for the deficient and negligent manner of service and at the same for adopting unfair trade practice, this complaint has filed by the complainant for relief.

Op no.1 S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that he is a mere seller and they are not manufacturer and not the service provider but ops are always willing to resolve the problem as early as possible.But complainant never approached to the ops for resolve the problem and in fact if the same is deposited, they shall have to do the need.

But other ops they were served the notices but did not turn up.Accordingly this case is heard final hearing/argument by the complainant and op no.1.

Decision with reasons

On proper assessment and evaluation of the materials on record including the complainant’s written version and also the defence of the Ld. Lawyer of op no.1 and complainant himself and further considering the receipt by which the complainant purchased the mobile phone, it is found that no doubt complainant purchased the same from op no.1 and from the said receipt Exhibit-A, it is clear that no warranty card was given.But it was stamped by the op no.1 shop to that effect PAID One Year Warranty awarded by the manufacturer, not by us.

But when the op no.1 asked the complainant to produce the complainant’s document in support of its details that is mobile, they kept mum.At that time one engineer of Haier Appliance submitted that those mobiles were completely sold by the company as damaged mobile for which no warranty card was issued and for that reason, the op no.1 did not issue the warranty card.

Moreover it is found that the said set was born defective set and there was manufacturing defect for which the Haier Company did not sell in the market but as scrapped.But when the matter is known to the Forum, op no.1 was asked to produce the document in support of purchasing those articles for selling in the market, when the op no.1’s agent and office staff left this Forum and did not turn up.In this context it is to be mentioned that we have come to learn that the present set as it has manufacturing defect, Haier Company did not sell it in the market as scrapped and that was purchased by S.H. MumtazuddinTimes Pvt. Ltd. which is very much known in the Bengal as a cheat business man and it is their business to purchase scrapped mobile phone and to sell it and in such a fashion they deceive the purchaser and it is not the first case of S.H. MumtazuddinTimes Pvt. Ltd.They are cheated so many persons and decrees have been passed against them and ultimately they have to pay the money and it is another feather in their unfair trade practice business and no doubt a damaged mobile phone was sold by S.H. MumtazuddinTimes Pvt. Ltd. and in fact in respect of the said mobile, there was no warranty of the company because such sort of article along with other articles sold with scrap materials but not for sale.

So, it is clear that op no.1 sold damaged and scrapped mobile phone to the complainant knowing full well that it has no manufacturing warranty and manufacturing company did not sell it in market and they did not sell it for marketing.But op no.1 by adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the customer in such a manner is selling such sort of damaged articles at low price by putting such one year warranty etc.Though those articles like this mobile phone is not or was not marketed by the manufacturing company of Haier.

So, for selling such sort of damaged articles by the op no.1, we are convinced to hold that op no.1 adopted unfair trade practice and by such means, they have deceived the complainant for which only the complainant is entitled to get relief against op no.1.S.H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd. who sold damaged articles knowing fully well that it was scrap but such sort of item is scrap not as the mobile item for use.

In view of the fact and circumstances, complainant is entitled to get the total amount of Rs. 2,000/- which has been paid against that mobile from the op no.1’s shop and also compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for harassing the complainant in such a manner and also for deceiving the complainant for selling such a damaged and scrapped materials of the manufacturing company.

Further complainant is entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the op no.1.But anyhow after proper assessment of the materials, we find that there is no material against other ops for which the complaint against other ops fails.Thus the complaint succeeds against op no.1.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2,000/- against op no.1 and same is dismissed against other ops but without any cost.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to refund the entire sale price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 2,000/- and also shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- i.e. total Rs.6,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal interest at the rate of Rs.100/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of this decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.

For adopting unfair trade practice and for running such deceitful trade by the op no.1 and to check such sort of business of the op no.1, op no.1 is imposed punitive damages of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited to this Forum and it is imposed for checking repeated unfair trade practice as practiced by the op even after passing several penal damages in other cases against op no.1.

          Op shall have to comply this order within one month from the date of this order and for non-compliance of the same and for implementation of the order and decree, penal proceeding u/s 25 read with 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against him for which further penalty and fine shall