Date of filing      :    11.07.2017.

Decided on         :    19.02.2019.

JUDGEMENT

Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Samar Roy against the above named O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Complainant’s case in brief is as follows :-

On 28.10.2016 the complainant purchased a mobile phone of Sony Xperia valued at Rs. 13,499/- by E-Banking through “ebey” with six months warranty and the same was supplied by SFD Mobile point. Within the period of warranty the complainant found manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone as there was no display on the screen. The complainant therefore went to the O.P. no. 2, Sony Authorized Service Center at Aurobinda Road, Salkia, Howrah and the said service center took the mobile phone and gave a service job sheet. O.P. No. 2 assured that he will repair the said mobile set within one month. But after five to six months O.P. no. 2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 19.06.2017 without any service and with the remarks that the set was not their own brand. O.P. no. 2 also declared that the set is not repairable, Therefore on 19.06.2017 the complainant through mail informed the circumstances to Sony India but there was no fruitful result. Hence the complaint praying for directing the O.P. no. 1 to replace the mobile phone with good condition by a new one and for an order of compensation and cost.

O.P. no. 1 & 2 appeared in this case and filed a joint written version but subsequently they did not appear to contest this case. Hence the exparte hearing. 

  POINT FOR DECISION

Is the complainant  entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

To prove his case the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit and he has also produced all relevant documents relating to his case. In his written examination-in-chief the complainant has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint and the documents filed by him also lend support to the case of the complainant. So in view of the said evidence of the complainant remaining unchallenged it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for against the O.P. no. 1.

Hence.

          it is,

                   O R D E R E D

that the Complaint Case No. 227/2017 is allowed on contest with cost against O.P. no. 1 and dismissed without cost against O.P. no. 2. O.P. no. 1 is directed to replace the Sony Xperia M4 AQUA mobile set by a new one to the complainant within two months from this date of order. O.P. no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within two months from this date of order.

          Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me. 

 ( Bibekananda Pramanik )                                              

             President, D.C.D.R.F., Howrah.