DATE OF FILING : 26/02/2016
DATE OF S/R : 16/05/2016
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 17/08/2016
Smt. Mala Mukherjee,
Wife of Sri Manoj Mukherjee,
Residing at 95, Sadar Baksi Lane,
P.O. & P.S. and District- Howrah
Pin- 711 101……………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
- The Manager, Check Point,
Micromax Mobile Authorized Service Centre
223/3, Mahendra Bhattachajree Road,
P.O. Santragachi (Opp. dalalpukur engineering Collage)
Dist Howrah 711 104
- The Mobile Station,
51, Chintamoni Dey road,
P.O. and P.S. And
Dist Howrah 711 101
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, Smt. Mala Mukherjee , 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.s to repair the mobile set in question or to replace the same at free of cost , to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation cost along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complaint purchased a mobile set on 04/02/15, from O.P.no 2 on payment of Rs.9,500/- vide Annexure Tax Invoice. The said machine is covered by a warranty for one year from the date of purchase. At the time of purchase she was told by the O.P. 2 that the set has DUAL SIM support and is having 32GB expandable storage card. But in fact these facilities were obtained alternatively. It is further stated by her that just after one month , there was charging problem with the set. And the complainant was required to visit the office of both the O.P.s for several occasions requesting them to repair the set . O.P.s also gave her all false assurances with regard to the repair as well as to the replacement of the set. On 21/08/2015 the set became completely non functioning and complainant went to the O.P.1. There it was disclosed by O.P.no1 that the LCD as well as the charging point of the set were damaged totally. It is also alleged by her that in spite of the fact that the set was within warranty period, O.P. 1 demanded Rs. 4,954/- for replacing LCD and also for repairing the charging point. So, complainant sent one legal notice dt. 28/08/2015 to O.P.s vide Annexure legal notice dt 28/08/2015 requesting them either to repair the set or replace the same free of cost as the set was still within the warranty period. But O.P.s remained silent. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notices were served. O.P.no 1 filed vokalatnama and written version. O.P no 2 neither appeared nor filed any w/v. Accordingly, case was heard on contest against O.P. no.1 and exparte against O.P.no 2.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- 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 w/v filed by o.p no. 1 along with the documents and noted their contents. We have also considered the documents filed by the complainant in support of her case. It is the specific plea of O.P.no1, the authorised service center of the manufacturer of the mobile set, ie Micromax , that the set was out of warranty as because the same was damaged externally like broken, liquid damage, water logged or tampered. And in that event, for replacement of LCD or repairing of charging point , complainant is required to make payment as per the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company, ie Micromax as O.P.no1 is to work as the service center under the manufacturer. So. they asked for the payment of Rs. 4,954.75 from the complainant which is only the cost of the damaged LCD and they did not charged anything for repairing service. And they have also given the price list of the manufacturer’s spare parts relating to the said mobile set. So, they have not adopted any unfair trade practice or they are not deficient in service. And they have prayed for dismissal of the instant case against them . O.P.no2 has not cared to appear before this Forum even after receiving the notice of this Forum and no w/v has been filed by them to contest the case. So, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged and uncontroverted against the O.P.no2. Here we take a pause. Complainant paid entire purchase price for the said mobile set being Rs.9,500/- to O.P.no2 but could not use it even for one month perfectly as it started giving trouble in the matter of charging since it was having manufacturing defect which can be very well understood from the above discussion. And after taking the entire purchase price from the complainant, O.P.no2 can not shrug of its liability and responsibility towards the complainant. They have to keep it in mind that the ultimate success of their business depends upon the customer satisfaction. At the same time it is also true that O.P.no1, being the authorised service center of the manufacture of the mobile set, did not receive any amount from the complainant. So, it was the duty of the O.P.no2 , who received the entire purchase price from the complainant, to take up the matter with the manufacturer and resolve the issue in order to give proper post sale service to the complainant. But they did not do so which is nothing but negligence on the part of the O.P.no2. And for their negligence complainant has suffered a lot. It is proved beyond any doubt that the mobile set delivered by O.P.no 2 was defective. Immediately they should have replaced by a new one in order to avoid this kind of complication. But they did not bother to do the same. Complainant paid quite a big amount for a mobile set. But the complainant was compelled to face a lot of trouble for no fault on her part. The negligence of the O.P.no 2 certainly caused severe mental agony to the complainant which cannot be expressed in words. And it is well understood by this Forum that complainant was harassed by O.P.no 2 undoubtedly. Accordingly, we are of 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. of 88 of 2016 ( HDF of 88 of 2016 ) be allowed exparte with costs against the O.P.no 2 and dismissed without cost against o.p no1 .
That the O.P.no 2 is directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one having same features and of same value with a new warranty to the complainant within one month from the date of this order id Rs. 50/- shall be imposed upon them till actual replacement.
That the O.P.no.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000 as compensation and Rs. 1000 as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order id , the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till full realization. The complainant is hereby directed to return the old mobile set in question , to the O.P.no 2 after receiving the awarded amount and a new set from them.
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.
