Judgment : Dt.22.11.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Smt. Munmun Banerjee, wife of Sri Debajyoti Banerjee, 1/9, Ajoy Nagar Santoshpur, P.S.-Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075 against Shiv Enterprise, authorized service centre of Karbonn Mobile Company, 25, Baghajatin Station Road, P.S.-Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032 praying for a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and depression suffered by the Complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a Karbonn Mobile phone, model name Quattro L50HD, 4G LTE mobile handset from a shop namely ‘Samadhan’  at 12A, Ajoynagar, Santoshpur, Kolkata-700 075 at a price of Rs.8,500/-. After the purchase, the mobile set performed well upto five months i.e. upto February, 2017. The real problem started from the month of March, 2017. Most of the time his screen touch did not work and three main keys also did not function. Subsequently Complainant faced the mental pressure. Complainant submitted her mobile phone before the authorized service centre in the month of March 2017. Complainant got back the mobile phone from OP and after ten days the same problem was started. Complainant went to the service centre. But, OP told her that it will take another one month to repair.

            Complainant was very much depressed and frustrated due to the conduct of OP and came back to home. Complainant was very much shocked and faced terrible mental sufferings as the mobile phone was not functioning. So, there is clear deficiency in service by the OP. The cause of action arose on 18.9.2016, the date when the Complainant purchased the mobile and after that faced a terrible problem.

            OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint petition. OP  has stated that Complainant had come to service centre only once and the problem was resolved within 18 days. OP did not make any harassment.

Decision with reasons

                   Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and OP also filed affidavit-in-chief.

                   Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.80,000/- for mental harassment. In the affidavit-in-chief Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. His allegations have been denied by OP in the form of filing evidence. It is the case of the Complainant that the mobile which he purchased after paying Rs.8,500/- did not function properly and for that he suffered mental pressure. Once he went to the service centre where the mobile was repaired. But on the second occasion Complainant was so much depressed that he did not hand over the mobile to the OP service centre because OP told that it will take another one month.

            So, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that still the mobile is not functioning and for which the Complainant had suffered tremendous mental pressure. Accordingly, we are of the view that if a direction is given for replacing the mobile or to pay the amount which Complainant paid for purchasing the mobile, with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- the object of justice would be served.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/348/2017 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OP is directed to replace the mobile within two months of this order, in default to pay Rs.8,500/- to the Complainant within another one month with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within that period, in default this amount shall also carry interest @ 10% p.a.