In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 387 / 2010.
1) Sri Dipok Ghosh,
Apurbapur (Bair), P.O. & P.S. Singur, District-Hooghly. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Sumsung Indian Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
10A, Lee Road, Pressman House, Gr. Floor, Kolkata-700020.
2) Karuna Management Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Meridian Plaza-I, 207, C.R. Avenue, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700006.
3) Sabsonic,
12, Loudon Street, Maruit Building, 1st Floor, Flat No.-10, Kolkata-700016.
4) Alcon Electronics,
105/B, G.T. Road, Barabazar, Chandannagore, Hooghly-712136.
5) The Mobile Stores,
6, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Order No. 1 5 Dated 2 9 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 2 .
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by Shri Dipok Ghosh against o.ps. for replacement of his mobile set.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant purchased a I-8910 model mobile set from o.p. no.5 on payment of a consideration amount of Rs.28,599/-. Since inception the set was not functioning properly and suffered from defects in video recording sound system. As per advice the set was handed over to o.p. no.2 on 16.2.10 for servicing but the defect could not be removed. Then on the advice of o.p. no.2 the set was handed over to o.p. no.3 for service but the problem remained same as before. Again on 9.9.10 the set was deposited to o.p. no.4, but o.p. no.4 also failed to ameliorate the difficulty. Being disgusted complainant sent advocate’s notice to o.ps, but the notice for o.p. nos.1,2 and 4 returned with postal endorsement ‘left’, ‘not known’.
In response on 9.10.10 o.p. no.1 requested the complainant through e-mail to meet Mr. Subhojit Das – Regional Trainer Mobile Phone of o.p. no.1 and the complainant met Mr. Das on 20.10.10 at Kolkata with the set. He also failed to cure the defect. Hence, the case.
O.ps. appeared scatteredly. O.p. nos.1 and 5 only file evidence. Other o.ps. have not filed evidence. O.p. no.1 files BNA.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. O.p. nos.1 and 5 actually filed w/v, barring o.p. nos.1 and 5 no other o.ps. filed w/v. Complainant after purchase of the mobile found some defect and went to o.ps. and they failed to remove the defects and going to door to door complainant got frustrated and ultimately issued ld. lawyer’s notice which was returned ‘left’, ‘not known’. But subsequently on 9.10.10 o.p. no.1 requested the complainant to meet one Sri Subhojit Das, Regional Trainer Mobile Phone of o.p. no.1 but he too also failed to remove the defects.
We find from the record that since purchased the mobile phone in question did not work properly and o.ps. failed to remove the defects and as such, we hold that o.ps. had deficiencies on their part being a service provider to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.ps. no.1 and 5 and ex parte against other o.ps. with cost. O.ps. are jointly and severally directed to make payment of Rs.28,599/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand five hundred ninety nine) only to the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_______ _________Sd-________
MEMBER PRESIDENT
