West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/18/2017

Mr. Debasish Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Global IT Net - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.18/2017

 

Mr. Debasish Roy, S/o-Jittendranath Roy, Vill-Palashi,

P.O.-Pachra & P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

1.The Manager, GLOBAL IT NET, Authorized Service Center, Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Midnapore at Rangamati (OPT NCC Office), P.O.-Vidyasagar University, P.S.-Kotwali,  District Paschim Medinipur;

2.The Manager, Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Office at Apeejay Business Center, Apeejay House, Block A, 8^th Floor, 15 Park Street, Kolkata-700016;

3.The Manager, Flipkart Com. Customer Care, Redg. Office WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech. Park, No.56/18, Block-B, 9^th Floor, Gravehavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068, Karnataka .………....…Opposite. Parties.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

For the O.P.              :        

 

Decided on: - 22/05/2017

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – The instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by Sri Debasish Roy alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Contd………..P/2

                                         

 

                                              ( 2 )

                   Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased a Lenovo K3 Note, vide IMEI No.868416029267761 at a consideration of Rs.8,279/-, vide invoice No.BLR_WFLD20151001386859, manufactured by Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ld., through the dealer Flipkart.Com. Customer Care by placing an order being no.0D304183135083817000 on 16/10/2015 and accordingly said mobile handset was delivered by delivery boy of O.P. No.3 on 26/10/2015. The  complainant further stated that he has found that the said handset had developed some defects in it, in respect of which he informed the O.P.-Service Centre, GLOBAL IT NET, who told him to deposit the same to repair vide challan no.1165. It is stated in the complaint that the O.P. Sales Service Centre returned the said mobile handset after repairing, the complainant found again that the defects were persisting. Having found so he again rushed to the service centre of O.P. no.1 with the defective set and deposited the same vide challan no.1597 dated 8/8/2016 and the O.P. no.1 returned the said mobile set after two weeks after repairing the same again. However while receiving the said mobile set the complainant noticed that the said defects were still persisting. Subsequently the complainant made contact with the O.P. no.2, the manufacturer and requested them to replace the defective mobile set by new one of similar description but to no effect. Being disgusted with the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 the complainant approached the C.A. & FBP on 02/09/2016 for Redressal of his grievance amicably and the C.A. & F.B.P. receiving the complaint from the complainant, summoned the O.P. on 05/12/2016 and on 22/12/2016 Ajit Das appeared on behalf of O.P. who promised the complainant to replace the defective set by  new one within 25-26 working days but he too failed to keep the commitment. Having no other alternative the complainant had filed the instant case on 06/02/2017 against the O.Ps, praying for direction upon the O.Ps. to make payment of the purchased amount i.e. Rs.8,279/- alongwith up-to-date interest @ 8% p.a., to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.

               Notices were duly served upon the O.Ps. but they did not turn-up again. The instant case has been fixed for experte proceeding vide order no.5 dated 20/04/2017.

              To prove his case, the complainant has examined through examination-in-chief as PW-1.         

Decisions :

        It is evident from the copy of the invoice no. BLR WFLD20151001386859 dated 26/10/2015 that the complainant purchased a mobile handset at consideration of Rs.8,279/-. It is also evident from the copies of deposited challan no.1165 and challan no.1597 dated 08/08/2016, that he had deposited the said mobile handset with the O.P.  

Contd………..P/3

                                              ( 3 )

no.1 on repeated occasion. The unchallenged evidence of PW-1 also shown that the O.P. no.1 failed to repair the mobile hand set by removing the defect. It further appears from the copy of the settlement of complaint no.1247 dated 26/10/2016 issued by C.A. & F.B.P., Paschim Medinipur Regional office that Sri Ajit Das assured the complainant for replacement of the defective set by new one within 25-26 working days although he did not do the same.

        Under such state of affairs we are of opinion that the mobile set in question is not repairable and  therefore as per provision of section 14 of C.P. Act the same needs to be replaced by was one of similar description.

       As regards the prayer for awarding compensation we are of opinion that the complainant failed to substantiate that he  had suffered for loss due to the defect remaining in the said mobile hand set. However the complainant stated that he had suffered from mental agony and pain, paid for compensation for that but there is no yard stick to measure the mental agony.

        However we think that it will be just and proper if the O.Ps. pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

        Regarding prayer towards cost we are of opinion that O.Ps. compelled the complainant to file the instant case due to deficiency in service on their part and therefore, the O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs.3,000/- of litigation cost to the complainant.

        In the result, the petition of complainant is succeeds in part.            

                                         Hence, it is

ORDERED

                                                         that consumer complaint case being no.18/2017 is allowed ex-parte with cost.

              The O.P. is directed to replace the defective mobile set of similar description by new one within one month from the date of communication of this order.

             The O.P. no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- plus Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period.

            If the O.Ps. fail to comply the order within the stipulated period the entire amount shall carry @ 9% p.a. till realisation thereof.       

              Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                     

                          Member                                           Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur