DATE OF FILING : 22.01.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 18.08.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.10.2015.
Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala,
son of Sri Kirti Kumar Jhujhunwala,
resident of 77 / 79, Sri Arvind Road, P.O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 106. …. . ….………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
The Authority Concerned,
WICKEDLEAK INC, 1ST Floor, ‘Aditya Villa’, Waman Wadi Lane,
Sion Trombay Road, Chembur,
Mumbai 400 071. .……………………………………………...……OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Sanjeev Jhunjhunwala, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the mobile set in question with a brand new one or refund the purchase price of the mobile set in question along with statutory interest @ 12% p.a., to pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Complainant bought one smart mobile telephone on payment of Rs. 19,889/- on 06.03.2014 vide Annexures from o.p. no. 1 through on line marketing system and the said mobile was delivered to the complainant on 12.3.0214 at his residence by the agent of o.p. But immediately after receiving the same through parcel, complainant opened the box and became highly shocked and astonished that the parcel is improperly sealed as well as tampered and found the mobile in question to be a second hand one as the back cover of the said mobile was full of scratches, dull and repainted without having any surface protector along with other defects. So immediately he sent an email to the o.p. informing about all these defects and o.p. also sent an email on 13.03.2014 and agreed that the said mobile has an aqua protect coating. So the surface is little uneven. O.p. also assured that the article was a brand new one. But complainant, being dissatisfied with the reply, again sent an email on 14.03.2014 asking o.p. to let him know the address of service centre of the mobile set. But o.p. remained silent till 19.03.2014. By that time the mobile started giving functional problem with respect to its power switch. So the complainant contacted o.p. on 24.3.2014 and the executive of customer care centre of o.p. instructed the complainant to send an email in order to receive replaced mobile set or money bag due to the defective handset. Complainant did so and as per the direction of the o.p., on 25.03.2014 complainant returned the mobile set in question along with all the accessories, original box and invoice copies to the o.p. through DTDC which was also informed to o.p. through email on 26.3.2014. At this juncture problem arose when complainant received one email on 27.3.2014 from o.p. whereby o.p. claimed that the screen of the said mobile was broken from end of the complainant. Thereafter many correspondences took place and complainant was asked to pay Rs. 8,500/- for necessary repair of the screen or they would return the article to the complainant. But o.p. neither repaired nor returned the article to the complainant till the filing of this case. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, he filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notice was served. But the o.p. refused to receive the notice of this Forum and neither appeared nor filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard ex parte against o.p.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. Even after making the full payment of Rs. 19,889/-, complainant could not utilize the set in a proper way. He has been deprived of using the set. The overall attitude of o.p. is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.P. should have remembered that the success of their business totally depends upon the customer satisfaction. No post sale service has been given by the o.ps. Moreover, o.p. has imposed an allegation on the complainant that the screen of the mobile became scratched by the complainant himself. Even o.p. was asking for Rs. 8,500/- from the complainant as repairing charge. How they can possess such a daring attitude towards the customer. Moreover, the o.p. has not cared to appear before this Forum and they have refused to accept the notice of this Forum. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed to provide post sale service and complainant has been harassed like any thing which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 34 of 2015 ( HDF 34 of 2015 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 19,889/-, as purchase price of the mobile set, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 22,889/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
