Order No. 11 Dt. 21.01.2016
This is an application u/s. 12 of C.P. Act filed by petitioner Amar Bagchi, Member of Malda Bar Association praying for refund of price of Mobile Handset of Rs. 10300/- and Rs. 500 per day from 25.06.2015 from the date of payment as compensation, for the harassment professional loss, inconvenience etc. Rs.5000/- for litigation cost or replace of new mobile set in place of old and defective set.
The case of the petitioner in short is that, he is a Member of Malda Bar Association purchased one Gionee Moible handset M2 Series on 05.09.2014 from the O.P. No.4 i.e. Tulsi Communication, for Rs.10300/- vide Cash Memo No. 607. The United Teleservices Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.2 has given warrantee for a period of one year from the date of purchase along with trouble free service of the Mobile Set. After getting the set it was completely defunct and shut down on 12.06.2015. The complainant informed this matter to the O.P. No.4 orally and the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in writing on 25.06.2015. O.P. No.1 received the information on 30.06.2015 and O.P. No.2 received the information on 29.06.2015. He went to the office of the O.P. No.3 and he verbally told to the complainant that the handset bears manufacturing defect is beyond repairable. He informed O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 again on 26.06.2015. He went to the Service Centre with his mobile set but the Service Centre did not pay heed to his request and also not behaved properly with the complainant. None of the O.Ps came out with any solution of the grievances of the complainant. His allegations in terms of the warrantee given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the said mobile set and the period given in the Letter Dt. 25.06.2015 has been expired. The complainant has not been able to use the Mobile Set for almost one month. He is under mental pressure for this reason and filed this case in this Forum.
Notice was sent by Registered Post to the O.P. Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 and all the O.Ps did not appear in this case and the suit is run ex parte against O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
To prove the case the complainant examined as P.W.-1 and filed some documents i.e. Exts. 1 to 5
Cash Memo of Tulsi Communication (Ext.-1) , 2) Receipt of Postal Department (Ext.-2), Lawyer’s Notice dt. 25.06.2015(Ext.-3), Postal Report dt. 29.06.2015 (Ext.-4), and Postal Track Report dt. 30.06.2015 (Ext.-5).
On the basis of the same following issues are framed:-
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
:DECISION WITH REASONS:
Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4
All the issues are taken up together, as they are co-related, for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Record does reflect anything regarding the maintainability of the case and the case is well maintainable.
P.W.-1, is a practicing advocate in Malda. He submitted that he is a Member of Malda Bar Association. He purchased one Gionee Moible( Model No. SMIEI 865346022169115M2) from the O.P. No.4 i.e. Tulsi Communication on 05.09.2014 for Rs.10300/- vide Cash Memo No. 607. The United Teleservices Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.2 has given warrantee for a period of one year from the date of purchase for trouble free service of the Mobile Set. After getting the set it was completely defunct and shut down on 12.06.2015. The complainant informed this matter to the O.P. No.4 orally and the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in writing on 25.06.2015. O.P. No.1 received the information on 30.06.2015 and O.P. No.2 received the information on 29.06.2015. He went to the office of the O.P. No.3 and he verbally told to the complainant that the handset is beyond repairable as the said contents some manufacturing defects. The complainant has not been able to use the Mobile Set for almost one month. He is under mental pressure for this reason and filed this case in this Forum.
After sending the notice O.P. Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 did not appear before the Forum to contest the case and no steps taken by them. So the case be heard ex parte against all those O.Ps.
It is crystal clear that it is a sheer negligence on the part of O.P. Nos. 1,2, and 4. O.P. No.3 is a service provider so there is no liability on his part.
So the case is established and the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C Case No. 59/2015 is hereby allowed ex parte against O.P. Nos. 1,2,and 4. The complainant is able to prove his case. He is entitled to get the awarded amount i.e. Rs.10300/- as the price of the Mobile Handset and compensation of Rs. 3000/- for harassment and professional loss and the cost of litigation Rs.1000/- totaling Rs. 14300/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Only). O.P. Nos. 1,2, and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the amount will carry interest @9% p.a. till its realization and has liberty to put the decree in execution. The complainant is directed to deposit the old mobile set to the O.P. No.4.
A copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner and O.P. Nos.1 2,3 and 4 respectively by registered post with A.D.
