Order No. 15 dt. 10.08.2017

           Today is fixed for ex parte hearing. The petitioner Md. Ali Ahmed is present by Hazira and submitted his affidavit-in-chief.

  The case is taken up for ex parte hearing and passing final order. The petitioner on Dock tendered his affidavit-in-chief on oath and documents furnished by him by Firisti are marked as exhibited documents.

  The complaint u/s. 12 in nutshell is that he purchased a Sony Xperia ZL Mobile set from the Smart Tech Solution Centre at price of Rs.35000/- on 28.05.2013. The said mobile set became dis-function after using the same for one and half years and deposited the set to O.P. No.1 for repairment on 30.01.2015. On 04.03.2015 in alternative arrangement, another mobile set of the said model was handed over to the complainant after obtaining Rs.13990/- from him as extra cost with a warranty of 6 months. The said alternative mobile set became defective and the same was deposited before O.P. No.1 on 24.04.2015. On 31.08.2015 another set of same model was handed over to him with a warranty of 3 months, within 4-5 days the said mobile set become dysfunction and deposited the same to O.P. No.1 on 07.09.2015.

Thereafter, on the part of O.Ps no proper initiative was taken to return back the mobile set to the complainant after repairment. Then the petitioner reported the matter on 09.06.2016 in written to Consumer Affairs Department , Malda for a solution. The appropriate authority has asked the O.P. No.1 to have a sitting where the authority asked the O.P. No.1 to remove the difficulties of the petitioner. In spite of that the O.P. did not take any proper steps and as such the petitioner has claimed compensation total Rs.253990/- from the opposite parties.  

From the documents tendered by the petitioner shows that Sony India Pvt Ltd. (OP-2) is the manufacturer of the said mobile set and O.P. No. 1 Smart Tech Solution is the authorized servicing centre at Malda for the products of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The Smart Tech Solution (O.P.No. 1) has sold out the instant mobile set to the complainant through his Mobile Shop Hallo Ritzi. The other documents show the two exchanges of the Mobile set through O.P. No.1.

          From the pleading and evidence of this case the last exchanged mobile set of the complainant was deposited on 09.07.2015 and the said mobile set has not yet returned back to the complainant.  The complainant genuinely suffered for not getting proper service of the mobile set in spite of his purchase by paying a handsome money of Rs.35000/- and Rs.13990/-. So the Consumer Affairs Authority took initiative to sort out the grievances of the complainant directing the O.P. No.1 to do the needful in spite of that the opposite parties of this case paid no heed.

          Rightfully the complainant should be compensated for deficiency of service from the part of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3.

         Proper fee paid.  

          Hence, it is ordered that the instant complaint U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is hereby allowed ex parte against O.P. Nos.1 to 3 with cost.

          The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby asked to pay compensation Rs. (35000/- + 13990/-) Rs. 48990/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from this day of order failing which 6% p.a. over awarded money shall be imposed upon them. No compensation is awarded for mental harassment and agony. The petitioner will be at liberty to put the decree in execution if the order of the Forum is not complied with.

          Let a copy of order be given to both parties free of cost.