Rajiv Prasad,

s/o. Kapil Dev Prasad,

residing at 51/1/A, Rabindra Sarani

Magistrate  Bagan, P.S. Liluah,

District –Howrah,

PIN – 711204.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

S.R.B. Electronics & Telecom,

Prop. Subronil Burmen,

s/o. Debasis Burmen,

98, Benaras Road Bamangachi, Salkia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711106.-----------------------------------------------------------------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. Rajiv Prasad, 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.ps. to return an amount of Rs. 1,850/-, being the purchase price of the mobile in question, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs  and other reliefs  as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one mobile set of

Micromax-make having IMEI NO. A10001 D52 8988 on 13-09-2012 on payment of Rs. 1,850/- vide Annexure 1 for which guarantee / warranty was provided for one year. But only  after few months, on 10-03-2013, the set started giving problem like speaker disturbance, key-pad problem along with sudden switch off trouble. Complainant visited O.P.’s shop for necessary repair or replacement of the set. But O.P. denied to do anything. Complainant at last set lawyer’s notice dated 24-03-2013 asking for the replacement of the set in question. But O.P. without doing anything remained silent. Being aggrieved complainant filed this instant petition praying for the  aforesaid reliefs.

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly,

case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

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 written version filed by O.P. and noted its contents. It is surprising that O.P. has denied that they have at all issued any money receipt, i.e., Annexure 1. Besides, O.P. has simply denied and disputed all allegations levelled against them by the complainant.  So, according to O.P., complainant has manufactured the money receipt dated 13-09-2012 vide para 12 of the written version. Again, O.P., in its written version vide para 12, in the last 2-3 lines, has accepted that they have issued money receipt only but no warranty was provided. But it is our common knowledge that for any electronic goods, or the seller. In this case, the mobile set must be having a warranty period for at least one year which is upto 12-09-2013. But the set started giving problem only within 5-6 months of purchase which is very very undesirable. People purchase something with the hope to use it at least for 1-2 years in a trouble-free manner. O.P. has totally destroyed complainant’s that hope which should never be encouraged. Accordingly, we hold that the mobile set in question is having certain definite manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified properly for which O.P. remained silent. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit.  

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 234 of 2013 ( HDF 234 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P.  

      That the  O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 1,850/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That the o.p. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d. the entire amount of  Rs. 3,350/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual realization.  

      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.