The appeal is preferred against the final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar dated 23/08/2016 in connection with CC/73/2015. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Prakash Mitra purchased a Samsung Mobile set at the price of Rs. 15,500/- from Roy Plaza, Cooch Behar as authorized dealer of Samsung electronics on 11/07/2015. From the very inception of such purchase he found the handset was disturbing for functioning and operation. And the Bluetooth device was not working properly. He then approached to the seller for replacing the same who advised him to make contact with Maa Padmavati Tele Solution, the authorized service centre of Samsung mobile set in the local area of Cooch Behar. Then he contacted with Maa Padmavati Tele Solution for removal of his problems but the approach of the service centre was not congenial towards a buyer. So, the purchaser Prakash Mitra was compelled to file a consumer complaint due to such apathy and unethical activities of the seller Roy Plaza and service provider Maa Padmavati Tele Solution. The said two opposite parties after receiving the notices have contested the case by filing written versions separately and denied all the material allegations levelled against them. Subsequently, the OP no. 2 did not contest the case in spite of filing W.V. The OP no. 1 contested the case up to the decision of the Ld. Forum. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences and after hearing the arguments, delivered the impugned final order and found that both OP nos. 1 and 2 were guilty in deficiency of service and for that reason, the Ld. Forum has delivered the award in favour of the complainant/purchaser Prakash Mitra.

            Being aggrieved with this order the OP no. 1 Roy Plaza has filed the appeal before this Commission and contended that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from irregularities and not vested with the law and liable to be dismissed. The consumer complainant Prakash Mitra has contested the appeal through his agent. The proforma respondent Maa Padmavati Tele Solution did not contest the appeal. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of appellant and respondent no. 1.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides, it is found that the respondent Prakash Mitra has purchased the said handset from the authorized dealer of Samsung electronics by making payment of Rs. 15,500/- in cash on 11/07/2015 and he approached the seller of such mobile set for dis functioning of the same and requested him to replace the said mobile set as it was not sufficiently providing the services. The seller then asked the purchaser to consult with the service centre who was authorized to look after the problems of the buyers within the warranty period. The said mobile set was undoubtedly defective from the beginning of purchase and it was within the 8^th day from the purchasing. He approached the seller to replace the same. Here, the authorized service centre Maa Padmavati Tele Solution had the occasion either to remove the defective organs of the phone or to suggest the dealer to have a replace of the phone to protect the interest of a buyer. But, here, in this case, neither the seller nor the authorized service provider has taken any sufficient care to protect the interest of a buyer. At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the appellant by citing two judicial decisions of State Consumer Commission, Kerala and West Bengal that while there is a manufacturing defect of any product then the manufacturer has the sole liability for replacing or removing the defect material to the purchaser. He highlighted the case before this Commission that here in this case, the manufacturer was not impleaded as parties to this case and for that reason, the entire order of Ld. Forum has based on mis conception and liable to be set aside. He further mentioned that the respondent no. 2 that is Maa Padmavati Tele Solution was agreed to fix the problem of the said handset by replacing the motherboard of the said handset but the complainant was not agreed with that proposal and for that reason, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the seller or the service provider. The respondent in this appeal has argued before this Commission that Roy Plaza is an authorized dealer of Samsung Co. to sell out the mobile set manufactured by Samsung Co. Ltd. and the said Roy Plaza, the appellant has acted as an agent in this case on behalf of the manufacturer. So, there was no necessity to implead the manufacturer in this case. Rather he contacted with the manufacturer through SMS and online at the instance of the appellant Roy Plaza and for that reason, the Samsung Co. well aware about the problems which was facing by the complainant/respondent since the date of purchasing of the said mobile set. So, both the seller and service provider are responsible for the harassment which has already suffered by the complainant and it was an unfair trade practice on the part of the M/S Roy Plaza and Maa Padmavati Tele Solution which are quite established. After consulting the valuable arguments and after going through the evidences on record, the Commission finds that the problem of the mobile set cropped up within the warranty period and within eight days of purchase. The complainant approached the seller with complaint about the dis functioning of the mobile set. Here, in this case, the seller that is Roy Plaza has acted as an agent of Samsung Electronics Co. and the respondent no.2 that is Maa Padmavati Tele Solution was authorized service provider. It is the responsibility of the service provider to render proper service to the customer within the warranty period and the seller has the responsibility either to solve the problem of the purchaser to remove the defects of the material purchased by the purchaser or to replace the same with a new one. So, both the appellant and respondent no. 2 had intentionally harassed a bona fide purchaser and there was deficiency of service on their part and for that reason, the Ld. Forum has rightly observed that the OP no. 1 and 2 was guilty of deficiency in service and should be liable for monitory compensation towards a bona fide consumer. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be correct without sufferance from any defects. However, for the ends of justice, the date of enforcement of the order is to be modified for practical reason.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The order dated 23/08/2016 in CC/73/2015 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar is hereby affirmed subject to effectual order of the award to be carried out since today (17/09/2019).

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. Concerned Forum through e-mail services.