JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY
Smt C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar PRESIDENT:
The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP.
Brief fact of the Complaint:
2. The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had purchased the Celkon Company mobile handset bearing model No A-21 by paying Rs.3, 999/- bearing receipt no 1788. The handset started giving problem like Battery and Display problem within warranty period same was informed to OP and the OP received the handset and kept it in his custody till date OP had not rectified the defect nor returned the mobile to the complainant further complainant submits that he had issued a legal notice through his advocate and complainant also issued the notice personally on 22.02.2015 prior to legal notice same was served to the OP but OP had not replied the notice nor rectified the defect of the mobile nor returned the mobile till date, hence complainant prayed to order the OP to repay the amount along with other reliefs with the Interest @18% since Op made deficiency in service.
3. The predecessor on seat registered the complaint and notice is ordered as such OP remain absent after service of the notice.
4. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with 10 documents are as follows:
1. EX C-1 Job Acknowledgement copy.
2. EX C-2 Invoice.
3. EX C-3 Legal notice.
4. EX C-4 and C-5 Two notice issued by the complainant to OP.
5. EX C-6 to C-8 Three Postal receipts.
6. EX C-9 to C-11 Three Postal acknowledgement.
7. EX C-12 Service charge bill.
5. In the background of the above said pleadings, the complainant himself examined as CW1 in support of the allegation the documents produced are as above. On the other hand OP remained absent after serving the notice.
On perusing the above document and arguments heard, we conceived that the dispute is regarding defect of mobile handset the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:
1. | Whether there is any deficiency of service by the Ops as alleged in the complaint? |
2. 3. | Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as claimed? What Order? |
Our Answer to the above Points are:-
Point No.1 – Affirmative,
Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,
Point No.3 - As per the final order.
R E A S O N S
6. POINT NO.1 and 2: Since point No 1 and 2 are identical and interlink hence we proceed both the points together to avoid repetition of fact.
The complainant filed this complaint against the Op alleging that the OP made deficiency in service, the complainant submits that complainant purchased a mobile handset in an Ops shop for Rs.3, 999/- model No A-21 handset belongs to a company called Celkon. The said mobile started giving trouble as Battery and Display were not working properly hence complainant handed over the handset to the Op on 07.04.2016 but Op had not rectified problems of the mobile handset nor retuned the mobile handset.
7. The complainant had produced the cash invoice bearing Invoice No: 2399508 dated: 31-07-2014 in the name of the complainant for purchase of handset which clearly establishes that the complainant purchased the said handset. The complainant produced the Job acknowledgement dated 07.04.2016 in this acknowledgement it’s clear that the OP had received the mobile from the complainant and Job acknowledgement holds the signature of complainant and OP but in the same receipt the column Customer signature with satisfied and received there is no signature such being the fact it’s clear that Op was had received the above said handset from the complainant. More over the complainant produced receipt/quotation for Rs.950/- the product being within the warranty period the service provider cannot claim the service charges from the complainant, the OP had kept the handset in his custody without rectifying the problem for a long period which amounts to the deficiency of service. If the complaint was complicated which cannot be rectified by the OP the OP had returned the same to the complainant nor he had sent it to the company for rectification.
8. The documents produced by complainant marked as EX C-1, EX C4, EX C-5 and EX C-12 itself shows the relationship of service provider and the customer, hence it is clear that the complainant establishes that OP had made deficiency in service, hence complainant is liable for partial compensation, hence we answer point No 1 is in affirmative point no 2 is in Partially affirmative.
9. POINT NO.3: In the result of the above findings, we deliver the following:
//ORDER//
- This Complaint is partially allowed.
- The Op is directed to rectify the defect within 30 days failing which Op to pay Rs.3,999/-( Rupees Three thousand Nine hundred Ninety nine only) to the complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.
- Further Op is directed to pay Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) towards litigation charges.
- Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 26st day of December, 2016)
