Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to replace the above model hand set in question.
- To pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty thousand only ) as compensation.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a hand set model A1+ Karbon IMEI No. 911123206848267 and IMEI No. 2/ESN 911123206488275 from opposite party no. 1 ( Softek Surya Pvt. Ltd. ) for which he has placed order vide annexure – 1. Thereafter, the aforesaid hand set was delivered by opposite party no. 2 by taking some extra amount and the total amount complainant has to pay is about Rs. 3,758/- in cash at the time of delivery in token of which annexure – 2 was issued.
The grievance of the complainant is that within one month of purchase of the aforesaid set, it become out of order and thereafter he submitted the hand set to the service centre against which service centre has issued annexure – 3. The staff of the service centre advised him to meet after a month. The complainant after one month, came to service centre at exhibition road, Patna and the staff of service centre advised him to come after some time in order to replace the hand set but without result.
In Para – 4G of the complaint petition it has been asserted by the complainant that the aforesaid set has not been returned to him till the filing of this case and it is alleged that opposite party no. 1 and 2 in connivance with opposite party no. 3 have deceived the complainant due to which he has suffered much because in absence of the aforesaid hand set he was handicapped in preparing for competition examination.
From record it appears that one Manoj Kumar Singh appeared before us who claimed to be area service in – charge of M/s Jaina Marketing & Associates ( Karbon ) and on 13.03.2015 we were informed that opposite parties are ready to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant on the next date but on 18.05.2015 the other side did not come and complied the order dated 13.03.2015 and as such this case was heard in the absence of opposite parties.
It is needless to say that there is no counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties.
The very fact that one Manoj Kumar Singh appeared in this case clearly goes to prove that opposite parties have full knowledge of this case and as such they have deliberately not appeared in this case in order to harass the complainant.
As there is no counter version of the fact asserted by the complainant in this complaint petition, we find and hold that the fact alleged in this complaint petition discloses deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstance we hereby direct opposite party no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to replace the aforesaid hand set with a new hand set with same making within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on Rs. 3,758/- vide annexure – 2.
It is made clear that at the time of receiving the aforesaid amounts from opposite parties, the complainant will return the aforesaid set to opposite parties if it is in his custody. If the aforesaid set is in custody of service center ( opposite party no. 3 ), then opposite party no. 1 and 2 will take custody of the same as they will deemed to be owner of the hand set.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- ( Rs. Six Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of one month.
Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
