Shri Anil Kumar Jain,

Residing at flat no. 815, 8^th floor,

C – Block, Shree Apartment 138, G.T. Road ( South ),

P.S . & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      M/S. Prime Retail India Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Manager,

1, R.N. Mukherjee Road,

Kolkaa – 700001.

2.      Aryan IT Services,

Vivek Vihar,

Through its Executive Officer,

Phase – 2 & 3,

493/C/A,  G.T.  Road, P.S. Shibpur,

Howrah – 711102.

3.      The  Chief Executive Officer,

Sonly Ericsion Ltd.,;Ambuja Reality,

Eco-Space, Business Park, Tower – B,  (4^th floor ),

New Town, Rajarhat,

Kolkata – 700156. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant, Shri Anil Kr. Jain  U/S 12 of the

C.P. Act, 1986 as amended up to date against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to  replace the mobile set in question or to refund the purchase price of the said with interest and  to pay an amount Rs. 5 lacs  as compensation for mental pain and agony along with other relief / ;s as entitled, as deem fit and proper by the Forum.

2.                  The brief facts of the complainant against his amended petition dated 07-02-

2013 against superseded the original petition  dated 29-05-2012 is that the complainant purchased a; mobile telephone of Sony Ericsson brand, bearing IMEI Sl. No. 356627033047168 from M/S . Prime Retail India Pvt.( Ltd. ) herein O.P. no. 1 on 25-11-2009 for his personal use.  The said mobile set started malfunct9ioning from the very beginning and showed signs / inherent defect within a month of its purchase.  The complainant brought notice to the O.P. no. 1 / sellers for a replacement of the said to

which the retailing outlet expressed his inability and advised to approach the authorized service center of the manufactur9ng company for a proper repair of the handset and subsequently complainant approached to the O.P. no. 2 who proclaimed to be authorized service centre of the handset service company for repair and/or  replacement. The said  mobile set  after thoroughly checked by the O.P. no. 2 returned to the complainant on 31-01-2010. The said mobile set against started malfunctioning and that to requested the O.Ps. to set right the same but on the contrary the O.Ps. did not take due care for set right the same on the plea ;that warranty period of the said set was over forcing the complainant to go for local repair shop resultant incurred a huge expenditure for such repair. Several  correspondences are made verbally / through ld. Counsel of the complainant but no result were yielded and finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case alleging deficiency in service in providing service from the O.Ps. before the  Forum praying for relief and compensation. Hence the case. 

3.                  Notices were served upon the O.Ps. which was duly received by the O.Ps.

namely O.P. nos. 1 & 3.  The notice served upon the O.P. no. 2 is returned back with the postal remark ‘not known’ also treated as good service as per Apex Court Order. Accordingly the case was heard ex parte against O.Ps. 1, 2 & 3.

4.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is   entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.       Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Complainant purchased the

 mobile set on payment of required amount and the set was showing malfunctioning from the very first day which duly been informed by the complainant to the O.Ps. as per record. It is noticed from the record that the complainant purchased the handset on 25-11-2009 and the said set got damages / malfunctioning on and from 17-12-2009. The O.P. no. 2 or his representative taken up the rapairing works and assured the complainant that the said handset henceforth is free of all troubles. But the complainant was not satisfied with the assurance of O.P. no. 2 because of the fact that the said set was further got damages / malfunctioning, wherein it is crystal clear that the set was having manufacturing defect since inception. As per ;record it is noticed that the complainant is a reputed business man of Howrah dealing in rakhis, lumbas and decorative items having a huge supplier as well as customer base for which he purchased the said set for being contract with his business associates which is meant for his livelihood and lying unused because of malfunctioning as such the petitioner has suffered humiliation and loss of prestige amongst his business associates which is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps. not only that O.Ps. failed to provide required service so that the set could have been operated smoothly, the O.P. no. 1 sold a defective set to the complainant.

      Accordingly we hold our considered opinion that the action of O.P. no. 1 for selling a defective goods is a deficient in nature which tantamount gross negligence and deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to get the relief  compensation as prayed for.

      The points under consideration are accordingly disposed of.

      The case succeeds on merits.

      Hence,                 

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 47  of 2012 ( HDF 47  of 2012 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P.  no. 1 and without cost against the rest.

      The O.P. no. 1 be directed to replace the mobile set with a similar one with fresh warranty within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against him till actual replacement. If the said mobile set is unavailable, the O.P. no. 1 directed to refund the purchase price of  Rs. 9,550/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry interest @ 9% interest p.a. till recovery.

      The o.p. no. 1  do also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment to the complainant.

      The complainant is  also entitled to a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the O.P. no. 1.

      The O.P. no. 1 is directed to pay the total amount of Rs. 7,000/- ( Rs. 5,000 + 2,000) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., lit shall carry an interest of @9% till realization.

      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.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                                      (   P. K. Chatterjee )

   Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                              Member,C.D.R.F.,Howrah.