Non-delivery of Mobile Phone after repairing by the OP-1 Smart Teck Solution (SAMY Servicing centre) Vivekananda Pally, Malda erstwhile Global IT service of the same address has obliged the complainant to come to this Forum for redressal of his grievances under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
The summons of the fact is that the complainant had deposited his Mobile set model Infocus M 8-10-16 GB gold to OP-1 for repairing on October 21, 2016. The said Mobile set was purchased online from VRP Telematics Private limited here in the OP-3 and handed over to the complainant at Balurghat on 02.11.2015. The IMEI No. of the Mobile set is 352546060992720. He purchased it at the cost Rs. 10,999/- as per written invoice of the said company kept in record. But after repeated request and persuasion from door to door of the Ops’-1 to 4 he got no relief. Under the circumstances he has claimed the refund of the value of the mobile set along with compensation amount 40.000 (Forty Thousand) and litigation cost 20,000 (Twenty Thousand).
The OPs have been sent summons but it is found that OP-3 and -4 do not exist in the address as provided by the complainant. The complainant has been ordered to provide proper address but he had failed.
The OP-1 and 2 though received the summons time and again but paid not heed and honour and to this Forum. So exparte hearing against OP-1 and 2 proceeded the OP -3 and 4 had been expunged due to insufficient address.
The complainant in his deposition documented as PW-1 and written argument with document (kept in file) has proved that the OP-1 has undertaken restrictive trade practices as defined under section 2 [nnn] (a) and Unfair trade practice as defined in section 2 (r) (viii) (ii) of the consumer protection Act 1986.
Points for Discussion:-
- Whether the maintainability of the case be under this Forum.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or restricted trade practice has been performed by the OP-1 and 2.
Decision with Reasons:-
Though all the OPs have the centre of business beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum but under section 11 (2) (b) of the CP Act 1986 the complainant has been allowed to lodge this complaint with this Forum. The tactics of aversion to this Forum by the OPs -1 and 2 strongly support their intention to take recourse to restrictive trade practices and unfair trade practices along with deficiency in services. The attitude of the OP -1 has obliged the complainant not only to go through harassment, mental agony and pain but also has disturbed the complainant’s day-to-day business as mobile set has become a daily necessity to a man in the present situation.
Hence,
Ordered
No contest occurred and hence the exparte hearing proceeded. The OP-1 is liable primarily for all the misdeeds and even the OP-2 whose authorized service centre is the OP-1 has actually taken no action. So both are equally responsible for the deficiency in service & restrictive trade practices in the name of repairing services. The complainant is eligible to get back the value of the mobile set amounting Rs. 10,999 and the compensation amount tantamounts to Rs. 8.000/- along with a litigation cost Rs. 4,000(Four thousand).
The value of the mobile and the compensation amount along with litigation cost is to be paid by the OP-1 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the value of the mobile set and the compensation amount that is 10,999/- plus 8,000/- will bear interest @ 10% till the full realization of the entire amount.
The OP-2 is directed to look into the matter so that OP-1 must abide by this order otherwise the responsibility for observing the order will have to be borne by the OP-2.
The registry in charge of this office is directed to send copy of this judgment to the OP-1 and OP-2 by Registered Post immediately free of cost.
