Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 24.10.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the full price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 9,999/- or to replace the said mobile set with a new mobile set of the same model.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had purchased a mobile set of Spice Company MI 525 after paying Rs. 9,999/- vide annexure – 1 on 20.12.2013. From the date of delivery, the mobile was not working properly so it was deposited in authorized service center i.e. M/s Kanchan Traders, Ashiana More on 03.05.2014 for removing the defect as will appear from annexure – 2. The said service center has replaced the mobile with another set claiming to be new one. The replaced mobile set was also not working properly and ultimately the complainant went to office of opposite party no. 2 and deposited the mobile on 04..07.2014 for repair as will appear from annexure – 3. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 again provided another set of same model to the complainant and claimed to be a new defect free set but unfortunately the replaced mobile was also not trouble free and the complainant again deposited the mobile to opposite party no. 2 on 19.08.2014. After much persuasion the opposite party no. 2 again on 15.11.2014 offered another mobile set of low price as per terms and conditions of warranty which was refused by complainant but his earlier mobile was not returned. Thereafter complainant sent a legal notice vide annexure – 4 and contacted opposite party no. 2 on 12.01.2015 but he refused to return the earlier mobile.
The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party no. 1 knowingly sold a defective mobile repeatedly to the complainant and lastly kept his defective mobile in service center without any repair.
From record it transpires that when the registered notice sent to opposite party no. 1 was returned with note “ Refused” and the registered notice sent to opposite party no. 2 did not return unserved then the Tamila was declared valid and the case was heard ex – parte because sufficient opportunity were given to the opposite parties but opposite parties did nor appeared neither filed written statement.
From bare perusal of complaint petition it transpires that since the day of purchase of earlier mobile after paying Rs. 9,999/- vide annexure – 1 when the mobile of the opposite party no. 1 did not function properly then he return the said to opposite party no. 2 who gave defective mobile which was also returned but defective mobile was never provided to the complainant. This shows that the complainant was given defective mobile by opposite party no. 1 and 2.
As the complainant has stated the aforesaid fact on solemn affirmation and there is no counter version of the opposite parties hence we have no option but to rely on the fact stated by the complainant in complaint petition which clearly shows deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 9,999/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand Nine hundred Ninety Nine only) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 9,999/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand Nine hundred Ninety Nine only) till final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation cost within the period of two month.
As the defective mobile set is with opposite party no. 2 which is the instrumentality of opposite party no. 1, hence no order is being in this regard. However, it is made clear that after paying the aforementioned amount to the complainant, the mobile set will be property of opposite parties.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member Member (f) President
