DATE OF FILING : 24-01-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 05-09-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-01-2015.
Santosh Kr. Deb,
son of late Banshadhar Deb,
residing at Jagacha ( behind Jagacha High School ),
P.O. G.I.P. Colony, P.S. Jagacha,
District Howrah,
PIN 711112................................................................. COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. The Manager,
Ramraja Teleservices authorized Services Centre
of Spice Mobile, 14/2, Ram Charan Sett Road,
Howrah 711 104.
2. The Customer Care Executive,
c/o. S. Mobility Ltd.
S Global Knowledge Park
19A & 19B, Sec. 125,
Noida 201301, Utter Pradesh.
3. The Manager,
Anglo Swiss Telecom,
6, B.B.D. Bag,
Kolkata 700001. …....................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, namely Santosh Kumar Deb,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.ps. to replace the mobile in question or to refund the purchase price of the mobile, to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one mobile from the o.p. no. 3 on payment of Rs. 9,700/- vide Annexure invoice no. 8309 dated 02.11.2013. But it is alleged by the complainant that immediately after purchase he inserted his SIM Card but the set showed low battery. So he put the mobile on charge for a long time. But on the 10.11.2013 the mobile set again showed ‘low battery’in spite of having full charge and got switched off automatically. It was informed to o.p. no. 3 who told him that it may be a fact that due to lose connection the mobile set was not charged fully. O.p. no. 3 also advised him that he should visit the service centre, herein o.p. no. 1. So he went to o.p. no. 1 on 25.11.2013 who took away the set and kept for two days and on 27.11.2013 o.p. no. 1 delivered the said after repairing. But unfortunately on 02.12.2013 the same problem arose. So the complainant requested the o.ps. to replace the same with the fresh one but o.ps. refused to do so. So finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case praying forthe replacementof the defective mobile set in question along with other prayers.
- Notices were served upon o.ps. But only o.p. no. 1 field written version.
Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 2 & 3.
- 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 gone through the written version filed by the o.p. no. 1 and noted its contents. O.p. no. 1 has given a detailed statement about the dates on which the technical person of o.p. no. 1 tried to redress the complaint of the complainant. And they have at all specifically denied that sold the mobile phone in question to the complainant.On perusal of the record it is evident that the mobile in question was sold by o.p. no. 3. And o.p. no. 1 is only the service centre of the manufacturer Spice Mobile. O.p. no. 2 is the customer care executive of Spice. It is quite understood when a product is found to be defective on the very first day of its use, the product must be having manufacturing defect for which none other than the manufacturer is held liable. But the question is the product is not sold by the manufacturer directly but it is sold by o.p. no. 3 the authorized dealer of the manufacturer. O.p. no. 3 just avoided to give any kind of redressal to the complainant even after receiving such a big amount of Rs. 9,700/- for a mobile set which caused severe mental agony pain to the complainant. Even complainant had to suffer a financial loss due to the malfunctioning of the set in question.Moreover, the o.p. nos. 2 & 3 have not cared to appear before the Forum even after receiving summons. No W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted against o.p. nos. 2 & 3. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency inservice coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period.And we are of the 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. 34 of 2014 ( HDF 34 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte with costs against the O.P. nos. 2 & 3.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the mobile set in question being Rs. 9,700/- within one month from this order i.d., @ 9% p.a. interest shall be charged on the entire decreetal amount till actual payment.
That the complainant is directed to handover the mobile set to the o.p. no. 3 after receiving the decreetal amount.
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost and o.ps. are directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 12,700/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d. amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment
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.
