The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that on 10.02.2012 the complainant purchased one L.G.mobile set  having model no. L.G.P-350 being IMEI no.358304045623912-2, Battery no.SBPL0103501AACDC111109 and S.N.No.111CQPY562912 at a consideration of Rs.7100/-  from the shop of Op no.1. After purchase the complainant found some problem in  the mobile set and contacted the oP no.1 . Op no.1 advised the complainant to contact Op no.2 , the L.G. Service Centre at Tarakeswar. The complainant as per advice of OP no.1 went to the Service centre i.e. OP no.2 . OP No. 2 after checking up the mobile set told the complainant to go to Op no.3 , as they have no such technology to repair the same. The complainant as per advice of the oP no.2 went to the L.G.Brand Service Centre, i.e. Op no.3 at Serampur, but oP no.3 told the complainant that the warranty period of he mobile in question has already been expired because the oP no.1 after making service of the said mobile sold the same to the complainant after repacking the same. Hence, the complainant has come before this Forum for proper redressal.

            The Opposite party no.1 entered appearance by filing Written version denying all material allegations. The case of the oP no.1 is that on receipt of the notice from Assistant Director , C.A. & F.B.P, Chinsurah, Hooghly the oP no.1 went to the office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, on 11.2.2013 . On that meeting the oP no.1 told the petitioner to repair such mobile. The Op states that the petitioner did not go to the shop of the Op and filed this case. Hence, Op prays for dismissal of the case.

            The OP no.2 and 3 inspite of receiving summons did not contest the case and also did not take part on the date of argument of the case. So the case was heard exparte against the OP no.2 and Op no.3.

            Complainant filed Xerox copy of bill and one cheque. Complainant also filed evidence on affidavit and Written Notes of argument.  Opposite party no 1 did not file any document.

POINTS FOR DECISION  

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3. Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?

DECISION WITH REASONS :

Point no.1

                The complainant has purchased one L.G. made mobile set at a consideration of Rs.7100/- from the Shop of the OP no.1 on 10.01.2012. So the complainant is a consumer as per Section 12 of C.P.Act , 1986. The point no.1 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.

Point no.2 and 3

            Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.

            It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased one L.G. made mobile set from the shop of the oP no.1 on 10.1.2012 at a consideration of Rs.7100/-. It is also admitted fact that after purchasing the mobile set  in question, the complainant found some difficulties and went to the shop of the oP no.1 and OP no.1 , advised the complainant to go to the L.G. Service

Centre i.e. Op no.2. As per advice of the Op no.1 the complainant went to the said Service centre of OP no.2 but OP no.2 failed to repair the mobile phone and advised the complainant to go to another L.G. Service Centre i.e. Op no.3. Complainant also went to the Service centre to the oP no.3 at Serampur but no fruitful result was given neither by Op no.2 nor by Op no.3 to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant then went to the shop of the OP no.1 , but the Op no.1 neither change the defective Mobile set nor paid the consideration money of the mobile set to the complainant. Be it mentioned here that the complainant before filing this case in this Forum firstly went to the office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly Region, for settlement of the problem and in the presence of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP , Hooghly Region and the complainant on 11.02.13 the OP no.1 divulged that he would repair the mobile  set in question . So, by this version of the oP no.1 at the chamber of Assistant Director, CA & FBP on 11.02.2013 it is crystal clear that the Op no.1 sold out a defective L.G.  mobile  set at a consideration of Rs. 7100/- to the complainant  on 10.1.2012.

            So , in view of the above discussion and on perusal of all documents , complaint, Written version, Evidence in chief etc. we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief. Hence it is –

                                                            Ordered

            That the C.C. no. 28 of 2013 be and the same is allowed on contest . The Op no.1 is directed to replace  the mobile set in question (model no. L.G.-P-350 ) to the complainant by a new one with same model alternatively the oP no.1 refunded the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.7100/- to the complainant. The Op no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the

 complainant towards compensation for his unnecessary mental agony, harassment and pain. The OPno.1  is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost . All the above payment should be made by the Op no.1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day shall be deposited by the OP no.1 and that should be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund.

            Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.