West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/7/2018

Nandalal Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, GLOBAL IT NET - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.07/2018

                                                       Nandalal Maity, S/o-Late Surendranath Maity,Vill.- South Inda,                                                                                  

                                                       P.O.Kharagpur,P.S.Kharagpur(Town), Dist.Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

                                                  1.  The Manager,  GLOBAL IT NET, Authorised Service Centre,

                                                   Lenovo India Pvt.Ltd., Midnapore Office,  At Rangamati(OPT. NCC office)

                                                   P.O.Vidyasagar University, P.S.Kotwali, Dist.Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721102.

 

                                                 2.  The Manager,  Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Office

                                                  At Appeejay Business Centre, Block-A,8^th Floor,15 Park Street,Kolkata-700016.

 

                                               3.The Manager, Flipkart Com.Customer Care, Regd.Office, WS Rertail Services                      

                                               Private Ltd.,  Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, “B” Block,9^th Floor,

                                               Gravehavipalya, Hosur Road,  Bangalore-560068, Karnataka.

                                                                                                            ............Opposite Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Arindam Das, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                                          Date of filing:09.01.2018.

Decided on  :04/05/2018

                               

ORDER

                        Pulak Kumar Singha, Member–

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

               The complainant purchased one Mobile Model E 3 Power of Motorola Company through online purchase from O.P.No.3 vide Order dt,-9.4.2017 and it was delivered by O.P.No.3 vide Invoice No. NOFOYOK 03818-00076401 on 09.4.2017. After purchasing the said Mobile it was not functioning properly and also disturbed sound

                                                                                                                              Contd………………….P/2

 

 

                                                                                                  ( 2 )

 system. Complainant intimated O.P.No.3 who primarily check and took deposit the mobile in question. Complainant visited several times to the office of O.P.No.3 and also intimated O.P.No.2 who is the manufacturing company and said mobile is still kept under the custody of O.P.No.1 who neither repaired properly nor change the mobile set. Since date of purchased complainant could not use the mobile set and it is till under the custody of O.Ps. for such complainant suffering mental pain, harassment and also monetary loss. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

O.P.No.3 contested the case by filing written version stating inter alia, that this O.P. carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured/produced by others, O.P.No.1 is the Service Centre of O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.2 is the manufacturer. O.P.No.1 & 2 are liable to provide resolution to grievance of complainant. This O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

 Inspite of service of summons O.P.Nos.1 & 2 neither appeared nor contested the case, as such the case is heard ex-parte against O.P.Nos.1 & 2.

 

                                           Decision with reasons.

 We travelled over the complaint, written version, evidence and documents and it appears that Complainant purchased one mobile set, manufactured by O.P.No.2, through online purchase by Flipkart. Com. customer care on 09.4.2017. After purchasing the said mobile it was not functioning properly rather disturbing the sound system. Complainant informed the defect to O.P.No.3 who delivered the mobile in question and as per instruction of O.P.No.3, complainant deposited the mobile to O.P.No.3 who sent the mobile to the O.P.No.1 for checking the defects. But till date O.P.No.1 did not returned back the mobile to the complainant. O.P.No.2 was also informed by the complainant but said O.P. did not pay heed to complain of the complainant.

O.P.No.3 by filing Written Statement submitted that this O.P.is only the seller of goods of O.P.No.2 and other companies. O.P.No.2 is the manufacturer and O.P.No.1 is the authorized service centre of O.P.No.2, After receiving the defect mobile, O.P.No.3 handed over it to the O.P.No.1 i.e. authorized service centre to solve the problem or replace the same through O.P.No.2. In his evidence complainant admitted that he has no grievance or claim against O.P.No.3. In the instant case O.P.No.3 is mere a seller of products, so, he is not liable to pay any compensation and he has no liability for harassment and other complains. From the case record we find, it is admitted fact that mobile in question was facing trouble and defects within the warranty period of one year, and said mobile is under the custody of O.P.No.1 after few days from the date of purchase. O.P.No.1 neither

                                                                                                                                           Contd………………….P/3

 

 

                                                                                           ( 3 )

               returned back the mobile in question after repaired nor replaced to the complainant.

  O.P.No.1 and 2 inspite of  received the summons neither appear nor contested the case as such the allegations of complainant is unchallenged and uncontroverted and in such way negligent and deficiency in service against O.P.No.1 & 2 is proved.

   In view of the discussions herein above, we think that complaint case is proved and complainant is entitle to get relief as per prayer of complainant.

   Complaint case succeeds.

                               Hence, It is,

                                                    Ordered

                                                      that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P.N0.3 and exparte against O.P.No.1 & 2 with cost. O.P.Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly or severally Rs.7,142/-, to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental pain and to Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

     Failure to comply O.P.No.1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization of full payment.                                                                          

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

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                           Sd/-P.K. Singha                                                                            Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                                 Member                                                                                         President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur