Date of filing : 28.5.2018

Judgment : Dt.15.2.2019

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Member

            This is a complaint made by Arindam, Bachhar, son of Sri Narayan Bachhar, residing at 93/K, Dr.C. S. Bose Road, Kolkata -700 039, P.S.-Kasba, P.O.-Tiljala against Infotel Services, 57, Bankim Mukherjee Sarani, Block-C, Taratala, New Alipore, Kolkata -700 053, P.S.-Alipore (OP) praying for directions upon OPs to return Rs.10,000/- replace the old one (non-functioning) i.e. excess amount charged along with interest @ 18% and compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that the Complainant purchased a MI NOTE 3 MOBILE No.WB68760/MI HSN : 85171290 on 1.7.2017 from Flipkart for Rs.9,999/-. A charging problem arose after 5 months and the mobile set was taken to Infotel Services (OP) on 1.2.2018 for servicing. The OP refused to do service for the reason that now it was serviced by other local mobile shop. As stated by the Complainant since the warranty period was upto 1.7.2018, then why it will be serviced from other shops at his costs. Thereafter, the service centre kept the phone and told the Complainant to collect after 2 days. The Complainant was told by OP on 3.2.2018 that the said mobile set cannot be repaired because it is repaired earlier in another mobile shop but later they kept the mobile and said to deliver the same after 2 days.

            The Complainant approached Consumer Affairs Grievance Cell and thereafter sent a letter to OP on 20.2.2018 but did not receive any reply and the mobile is in operative till date. So the Complainant filed this case.

            Notices were served to OP. OP did not contest this case by filing written version and so the case proceeded for ex-parte hearing.

            Authorised representative of the Complainant filed a petition praying to treat the Complaint petition as Affidavit-in-chief and the prayer was allowed. The same authorized representative was also present on the hearing date.

            Main point for determinations is to

            i) Whether there is a deficiency of service upon OPs.

            ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            Decision with reasons

            On perusal of the recorded documents in file, it appears that the Complainant purchased the mobile handset No.MI WB68760 for Rs.9,999/- from Flipkart vide Invoice No.FAAOZKI801317194 DT.1.7.2017.

            The main grievance of the Complainant that the service centre Infotel Services (OP) has refused to rectify the problem of phone which arose on 1.2.2018 since the same was earlier serviced in local shop. On scrutiny of the copy of Service Record Sheet issued by OP dt.3.2.2018, it appears that it is mentioned under service type as “Out of warranty” and under caption Inspection marks as “phone unauthorized service” and the same has been duly received with signature by Nabamita Bachhar as customer who is also the authorised representative of this instant petition of complaint.

            Although he Complainant has not made manufacturer a party in this case but on perusal of the original warranty card filed by the Complainant, it appears that the mobile phone MI BAND has warranty for 1 year and the scope of warranty mentioned as Replacement. There is no doubt that the Complainant purchased the said phone on 1.7.2017 and approached OP after using the phone for seven months i.e. on 1.2.2018 which was well within the warranty period. But, OP in their service record which was generated on dt.3.2.2018, mentioned “out of warranty” under captioned column : Service type and for which claimed a service charge of Rs.6,251.64p for the repairing the said phone which was actually under warranty.

OP has stated in their service  record sheet that Complainant used other unauthorized service centre to repair the phone. But the Complainant in his petition of complaint has stated by swearing affidavit that the phone was under warranty coverage and therefore, there was no need to go to any unauthorized service centre by paying extra cost.

            Since the allegations remain unchallenged and unrebutted, so we hold that there is certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the OP for denying to repair and thereafter claiming extra cost and so the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.

 Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-.

In our view if a direction is given to the OP to repair the said handset free of cost along with compensation of Rs.4,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- justice would be served.

            Hence

                                 ordered

            CC/310/2018 and the same is allowed in part ex-parte against the OP.

           The OP is directed to repair the said handset WB68760/MI HSN 85171290 in full working condition at free of cost and handover to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid period.