Present : Debi Sengupta ….. Member
The fact of the complain of the Complainant in a nutshell is that the Complainant purchased a Micromax smart phone on 19.06.2014 from Spice Hotspot Retail Ltd., Chinsurah, Hooghly. The Complainant gifted the said smart phone to her daughter. The Complainant states that within 3 months the date of purchase, a problem detected in the touch-screen and within 2-3 days the phone totally became inoperative. Having no other option the Complainant along with her daughter went to one authorized service centre M/s. J.K. Enterprise (W.B) – 1, G.T. Road, Padripara, P.O. & P.S. Chandannagar, Dist. Hooghly, wherein the service personnel of O.Ps advised the complainant to deposit the said handset for seven days in order to repair the same and, accordingly, the Complainant deposit the said handset to the Authorised service centre of the O.P. The Authorised service centre issued a job sheet in favour of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant alleged and stated that after seven days the Complainant and her daughter visited the O.P’s authorized service centre to know about the handset of the Complainant but each occasions the O.Ps authorised service centre shows unreasonable and harassing reasons. The concerned personnel of the O.P. informed the Complainant and her daughter that the phone is not ready for delivery and the same is lying under their job sheet. The Complainant alleged that on several occasions the authorized representative of O.Ps falsely answered the Complainant by stating that the phone will be in order within a very short period. Ultimately, on 19.04.2014 the authorized service centre of O.P. company rudely behaved by stating that the required parts of the Smart Phone is not available and created pressure to take back the Phone with the same condition. The Complainant states that she refused to take back the Phone as it was under warranty period and due to mishandling the outer look of the Complainant’s Phone became damaged. Facing tremendous harassment from the O.P. personnel, the petitioner was compelled to send legal notice but the representatives of the O.P. did not take any steps to resolve the matter.
It is a fact that O.P. Company is liable for Complainant’s harassment and there is gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the authorized representatives of the O.Ps. The Complainant alleged that the O.P. company sold a poor quality product which became out of order within four months and the same was also under warranty period knowing fully the quality of the product. Having no other way the Complainant has compelled to file the instant petition before the Hon’ble Forum and prays for necessary order and relief as prayed for.
The O.P. No. 1 and 4 contested the case by filing written version denied and disputed the allegations levelled against him and stated that the instant complaint is not maintainable as per provision of C.P.A. Act. O.P. No. 1 submits Para 18 of his written version that there is no intentional latches or any negligence on the part of the O.P. No. 1. O.P. No. 1 is ready to refund the purchase amount of the said handset and further states that the Complainant has to come forward and extends his willingness to accept the offer of the O.P. No. 1.
O.P. No. 1 submits that the Complainant has not come before the Ld. Forum with clean hands. If the Complainant extend his willingness the O.P. No. 1 would have to replace the handset also and prays before the Forum to dismiss the Complain Case with cost.
The O.P. No. 4 denied all the averments made by the Complainant regarding the defective handset except those which are specifically admitted under the reply. The O.P. No. 4 states in his written version that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 4. The O.P. No. 4 in his reply further states that the dealer from which the Complainant purchased the handset is liable and not the authorized dealer. The O.P. No. 4 states and argued that though intimated to get the repaired handset collected from the service centre the Complainant refused to collect the repaired handset from the service centre but the O.P. No. 4 states that it is the mala fide intention of the Complainant with a view to gain undue advantages so the Complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint and in the light of the above facts and circumstances and prays before the Forum to dismiss the case.
O.P. No. 3 though received the notice remained absent and an ex parte order passed against O.P. No. 3.
No. S/R of O.P. No. 2.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of Complainant petition.
O.P. No. 1 and 4 file written version BNA filed by the Complainant. Argument heard in full.
Point for decisions
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons
All the points are taken together for the easiness of disposal.
In the light of discussion it is admitted that the Complainant purchased the alleged Smart Phone from Spice Hotspot Retail Ltd. And paid a sum of Rs. 7,350/-. O.P. No. 4 issues job sheet in order to repair the handset and it is admitted in her written version of the O.P. No. 4. So the Complainant is a consumer within the purview of C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No. 2 and 3 :-
From the Complaint as well as the written version it appears that the Complainant purchased the Smart Phone at a sum of Rs. 7,350/- and within 3 months from the date of the purchase a problem detected. Thereafter, the Complainant went to O.P. No. 4 for repair but O.P. No. 4 on various lame excuses avoided the request of the Complainant whenever the Complainant asked the delivery of the phone. The authorized service centre of O.P. No. 1 behaved rudely and stated that the spare parts of the phone are not available so they are unable to repair the same. It tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 4. O.P. No. 4 denied their liability.
So from the documents filed by the Complainant mainly written complaint and purchase bill shows that the Complainant purchased the Smart Phone which became defective within three months from the date of purchase. Inspite of getting the defective Phone the O.P. No. 4 did not take care. O.P. No. 4 is well aware that there is manufacturing defect but he did not try to meet the demand of the Complainant in this way avoided his responsibility towards the customer and is liable for unfair trade practice. He is making business for his own profit but he had duty to the consumers. O.P. No. 1 and 4 cannot avoid their responsibility. Here, the authorized service center is not the party. O.P. No. 1 cannot avoid his responsibility. He should borne in mind he is making business for profit only and if the purchasers come before him to purchase the product it is his utter duty to pay respect to the Complainant’s grievances and give him some relief. It is the duty of the O.P. No. 1 to sell the defect less Smart Phone. By saying that the Complainant has not come to O.P. No. 1 to replace the handset or prayed for refund of the purchase amount of the handset. It was the duty of the O.P. No. 1 to cure the defect or give remedy to the grievances of the Complainant.
We have gone through the statement. We have gone through the paper of purchase. We have gone through the step taken by the Complainant to cure the defect and last of all the Complainant deposit the said mobile set in the office of authorized service centre of O.P. No. 4. The authorized service centre of O.P. No. – 4 did not take any step to cure the defect of the mobile set with the help of the company O.P. No. 1. So we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the claim of the Complainant for a new mobile touch phone or the price of the mobile at the time of purchase with interest on that amount.
Hence, it is ordered that the C.C. Case No. 59/2015 he and the same is allowed on contest O.P. No. 1 and 4 are directed to replace the mobile touch phone in question with a new one or in default. O.P. No. 1 and 4 are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 7,350/- with interest 18% per annum on 09.09.2014 till full payment. O.P. No. 4 is also directed to pay compensation of amount Rs. 15,000/- causing harassment, pain and mental agony. O.P. Nos. 1 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
All the above orders should comply by 45 days from the date of this order i.d. Opposite Parties shall pay @50/- for each days delay shall be deposited by the O.P. and that should be deposited in the Legal Aid Forum.
Let the copy of this order be made once to the parties free of cost.
