DATE OF FILING : 26.03.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 20.05.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 03.08.2015.
Sri Pradip Hirawat,
son of Bijoy Siungh Hirawat,
residing at 17/1, Ram Mohan Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah. ……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Manager,
Reliance Retail Ltd.
( formerly Reliance Fresh Ltd. ),
having its place of business at
Avani River Side Mall,
32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711102.
2. The Manager,
Kalpataru IT Retails Pvt. Ltd.,
E. mail Shop No. 105, 1st floor,
6, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata 700072.
3. Sony India Pvt. Limited,
Having its regional office at
White House, 2nd floor, Block 2D,
119, Park Street, opposite Apj School,
Kolkata 700016. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sri Pradip Hirawat, against the Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., and two others praying for a direction upon the o.ps. to replace his mobile handset purchased by him or to refund the sale price of Rs. 29,999/- with statutory interest and to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with 18% interest till recovery and cost of litigation being Rs. 15,000/-.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one mobile handset being model ‘SONY Xperia’ with IMEI no. 355666055696503 on payment of Rs. 29,999/- on 12.6.2014 from the shop of the o.p. no. 1, Reliance Retain Ltd., situated at Avani River Side Mall. Since few days of purchase, the petitioner found that there were technical irregularities and the handset started malfunctioning and he requested the o.p. no. 1 to replace the same or repair. The o.p. no. 1 did not pay heed to him and after several requests advised him to take the handset to the service centre namely o.p. no. 2 and deposited the same in the custody of o.p. no. 2 who assured him to return the same after a week. He visited the service centre again and again but in vain and then having no alternative after a lapse of two months the o.p. no. 2 did not return the set which suffered from loss of data etc. and the o.p. intentionally did the same. Then the petitioner sent legal notice to the o.ps. and on 02.3.2015 the complainant met o.p. no. 3 SONY India Pvt. they but denied the liabilities and then he filed this case after huge mental pain and agony.
3. The o.ps. did not appear in the case even though they received the summons. The case is heard ex parte against them.
4. The only point is decided herein whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. In support of his case the petitioner filed the cash memo showing payment of Rs. 30,450/- on 12.6.2014 and also service job sheet dated 02.12.2014 and the lawyer’s letter dated 10.2.2014 which along with the affidavit in chief prove the fact that the petitioner purchased the mobile handset and the same handset went out of order and in spite of his taking the same to the service centre the o.ps. did not repair the same and all the oral and documentary evidences went to unchallenged against the o.ps. and there is nothing to disbelieve the such evidences.
6. In view of above this Forum finds that the o.p. no. 1 sold a defective mobile handset to the petitioner and the o.p. no. 2 could not repair the same when taken to the service centre and the o.p. no. 3 also did not replace the said handset or refund the purchase money and thus the petitioner succeeded in proving the case. The point raised is thus disposed of in favour of the petitioner.
In the result, the claim succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 122 of 2015 ( HDF 122 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed exparte with costs against the O.Ps.
The petitioner is entitled to get back his purchase money with interest or replacement of his old mobile phone by a new one on the same price and quality and the o.ps. are directed to replace the same or to refund the purchase money with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization within 30 days from the date of this order.
The petitioner is also entitled to get compensation for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and a litigation costs of Rs. 4,000/-.
If the o.ps. fail to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of this order then the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution and the o.ps. to pay further interest on the compensation amount and litigation costs since the stipulated period @ 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.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
