West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/90/2017

Sandipan Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/S R.N. Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

17 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                           

     

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

 Sagarika Sarkar, Member.   

Complaint Case No.90/2017

 

Sri Sandipan Ghosh, S/o-Sri Kanailal Ghosh,

Vill-Sarbera, P.O.-Santbankura, Town, P.S.-Kotwali,

District-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                ..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

1. The Manager, M/s-R. N. Telecom, Authorized Service Center,  Micromax Informatics Ltd., Midnapore Office, Amrit Building,                                        

                                           Burdge Town, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

2. The Manager, Micromax Informatics Ltd. at 21/14A, Phase-11, Narina, Industrial Area, Delhi-116028
3. Proprietor of  Kar Mobile, Chandrakona Road, P.O.-Santbankura

P.S.-Garhbeta, Dist-Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                .…...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                 : Mr. Susanta Kumar Jana, Advocate.

 

                Decided on: 17/01/2018

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member :

                 Complainant files  this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

                  In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one mobile, made Micromax-CG-777 from O.P. no.3, worth Rs.2,400/- and said mobile bears one year warranty. After 4/5 months from the date of purchased said mobile in question was function with some problems. Complainant went to O.P. no.1, authorized service

                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                      ( 2 )                                                                                                  

center of O.P. no.2 and deposited the mobile for repair. O.P. no.1 handed over the said mobile after repaired to the complainant, after some days complainant faced again problem of said mobile and meet with O.P. no.1 to solve the problems of his mobile but O.P. no.1 refused to repair the defective mobile. Complainant lodged complain before Consumer Affairs Department against O.P. no.1 and 2 where O.Ps. agreed to replace the mobile or make payment of  Rs.2,400/- but O.Ps. did not comply the order of Affairs Department. Complainant appears before this Forum for getting redressal.

                 O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegation of complainant stating inter alia that this case is not maintainable, O.P. no.1 return the mobile without repaired as the warranty seal of the mobile was broken. Asstt. Director of C.A. & F.B.P. directed O.P. no.1 to pay Rs.2,400/- to the complainant, O.P. no.1 is not liable for all shorts of liability and this O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

                O.P. no.3 contested the case by filing written objection  denying the allegation of complainant stating that O.P. no.3 sold the mobile in question and after being satisfied complainant purchased the said mobile, this O.P. has no deficiency of service.

                Inspite of service of summon O.P. no.2 neither appear nor contested the case as such this case is heard ex-parte against O.P.  no.2.

                

                                                         Decision with reasons

                We carefully perused the complaint, evidence and documents. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased one Micromax-CG777 model Mobile worth Rs.2,400/- on 13/10/2015 from O.P. no.3. After 4-5 months from the date of purchased said mobile started trouble for not functioning switches and the key pad property. Complaint first time deposited his mobile to O.P. no.3 for repairing the problems and after repaired O.P. No.3 handed over the mobile to the complainant but after some days complainant faced again problems of the said mobile and he again meet with the O.P. No.3 who refused to repaired the mobile in question within warranty period. In support of his case complainant adduced evidence by tendering himself as witness and submitted documents which are (marked exhibit 1 to 5) and he was cross-examined by O.P.No.1 and 3. O.P. no.1 adduced evidence tendered himself as OPW-1 and he was cross-examined by complainant.

               It appears from (exibit-A) i.e. in the Job Sheet (Copy), it is mentioned that Return with out repair, due to warranty seal broken but who produced the said documents, he is the proprietor of servicing centre, not an expert and who signed the document he also not examined, for which is not proved by whom the warranty seal was broken. Moreover from the document (Exhibit-3) it revels that as per complain by the

                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………P/3

 

( 3 )

complainant to the Consumer Affairs Department,  one Advocate namely Sri Arijit Bera appeared on behalf  of O.P. no.1 & 2 and assured to returned back Rs.2,400/- to the complainant as per mediation in the office of said affairs department on 27/10/2016. O.P. no.2 in-spite of service of summon neither appeared nor contested the case. O.P. no.2 had enough opportunity to establish whether the mobile in question was manufacturing defect or not but their silence proves that said mobile was inherent defect since purchased and being a manufacturing company did not render proper service to the customer. In view of the discussions here in before, it appears that O.P. no.1 is authorized service center and O.P. no.3 is shopper who sold the mobile. O.P. no.2 is the manufacturer of said mobile. We find from the documents that O.P. no.2 appeared before consumer affairs department through their Ld. Lawyer and on 27/10/2016 at the time of mediation assured that O.P. no.2 will refund back  Rs.2,400/- to the complainant but did not comply the settlement order of Consumer Affairs Department we think that O.P. no.2 is negligent and deficient in rendering service to the customer i.e. complainant.

As such complainant is entitled to get an order with compensation and cost against O.P. no.2.                                                                                               

                                  The complaint case succeeds.           

           Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                             that the complaint case be and the same is allowed in ex-parte against O.P. no.2. O.P. no.2 is directed to pay Rs.2,400/- (Cost of the mobile) and pay Rs.500/- as compensation for mental pain to the complainant.

O.P. no.2 is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant and all sorts of payment shall be paid within one month from the date of order.

Complainant is directed to handover the mobile set in question to the O.P. No.2.

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

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

             Dictated and Corrected by me

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

                               Member                                          Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur