DATE OF FILING: 23.12.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 21.02.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Aseem Pradhan has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he had purchased a handset mobile V002606/Intex Acqua Plus (911442504994809 and 91144250499487) for payment Rs.7099/- on dated 18.10.2015 through Flip – kart and obtained invoice Bill No. F04180 EL 16-22734dated 18.10.2015. The O.P.No.2 is the authorized service centre for the O.P.No.1 Company. From the beginning the set was running very smooth but it is unfortunate that after 4 to 5 months of purchase the above mobile set started trouble, like jumping of touch screen, breaking of voice and the set is hanging frequently, the battery is becoming much hot for which the complainant went to the O.P.No.2 the authorized service centre for three times who could not able to repair the same and remove the defective of the said set and lastly refused to repair the same and advised to approach the O.P.No.1. Accordingly the complainant mailed to the O.P.No.1 on dated 10.10.2016, 12.10.2016 and 13.10.2016 which has been acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 Company. After repeated request through mail the O.P.No.1 did not take any steep for repair of the said defective mobile set nor replace the same with a new one. The complainant sent a registered notice through his advocate on dated 17.10.2016 to the O.P.No.1 to replace a new set in place of the defective set. The O.P. received the same but did not prefer to reply on the said notice nor take any steps for replacement of the aforesaid defective mobile set. The complainant approached the O.P.No.1 as well as went to the O.P.No.2 several times for repair of the defective set sparing his valuable time and spending a lot of money for travelling but all the attempts of the complainant are became in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 to replace the defective mobile set with one new mobile set or to pay the cost of the mobile set of Rs.7099/- with compensation for the damages mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.15,000/-in the best interest of justice.
3. The complaint is admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and filing written version on the date fixed. But the O.P.No.2 did not prefer to appear even after publication of notice in the daily newspaper “Samaya” on 03.08.2017 and O.P.No.1 also did not appear on the date fixed. As such the O.Ps are set exparte on dated 26.09.2017.
4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed documents as per list alongwith written notes of argument. Heard the argument of the complainant’s advocate.
5. In the instant case after perusal of the record and scrutiny of documents, it reveals that the complainant had purchased a mobile hand set V002606/Intex Acqua Plus (911442504994809 and 91144250499487) for payment Rs.7099/- on dated 18.10.2015 through Flip – kart and obtained invoice Bill No. F04180 EL 16-22734dated 18.10.2015. The O.P.No.2 is the authorized service centre for the O.P.No.1 Company. After 4 to 5 months of purchase the said mobile set started trouble as jumping touch screen, breaking voice, having defective battery etc. The complainant went to the O.P.No.2 for three times, who could not able to repair the same or remove the defect and lastly refused to do the same and advised to approach O.P.No.1. The complainant mailed complaint to O.P.No.1 on dated 10.10.2016, 12.10.2016 and 13.10.2016 which has been acknowledged the same by O.P.No.1 Company but did not take any step either to repair the defective mobile set or to replace with a new one. In this case when the O.Ps failed to contest the case and not controverted the contentions of the complainant. We presumed the contention of the complainant is true. The mobile was found to be defective during warranty/guarantee period and the O.Ps failed to rectify the same inspite of repeated approach by the complainant.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are convinced that the complainant has repeatedly run after the O.P.No.2 for repairing or replacement of his defective mobile set due to problem during warranty/guarantee period but the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. As such the complaint is entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Forum and has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as litigation cost in favour of the complainant.
6. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against O.Ps. Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund the cost of the defective mobile set i.e. Rs.7099/- and Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 9% interest per annum. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 21st February 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
