DATE OF FILING : 10-05-2013. DATE OF S/R : 07-6-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26-08-2013. Sri Shouvik Roy, son of Sri Goutam Roy, residing at 82/2, Bangalpara 2nd Bye Lane, Carry Road, P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 102.------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. The Manager, Touch World Nokia Care Centre, 93/7, Deshpran Sasmal Road ( opposite Khorodtola ), P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah, PIN – 711 101. 2. The Care Manager, Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Sp. Infocity Industrial Plot 246, Udyog Vihar Phase – I Dundahera, Guragaon – 122015, Hariyana. 3. Reliance Digital, Reliance Digital Retail Ltd., Avani Riverside, 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat R oad, Shibpur, Howrah, PIN – 711 102.-----------------------------------------------------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 the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) against O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g), 21)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 where in the complainant Shri Souvik Roy has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to replace the Nokia Mobile Set with a brand new one or to refund the purchase money of Rs. 15,440/- together with interest of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony and pain. As the Nokia Lunia 620 IMPEI Mobile phone since after the purchase was found inherently defective and beyond repair though o.p. no. 3 promised to set right and has not yet rectified the defect caused unnecessary harassment. Hence the case. 2. In spite of service of summon of O.P. no. 2 did not appear so the case was heard ex parte against the O.P. no. 2. 3. The O.P. no. 3 vide their written version contending interalia that the defect in the mobile set is purely manufacturing defect and this answering O.P. has no role to play the same, and in no way responsible for the manufacturing defect / or internal defect as he is only a retailer, sells goods to the consumers. So the total obligation of removing the internal defects in the present case is rest upon the O.P. no. 1 i.e., manufacturer for which there is no negligence on the part of the O.P. no. 3 nor there is any deficiency. 4. On the other hand the o.p. no. 1 on his written version stated that on 23-04-2013 the complainant approached O.P. no. 2 with same problem specially ELS ( entry label screening ) and complete the ELS in front of the complainant. This answering denied the demand of repairing charges as stated by the complainant of Rs. 5,000/- : - that there is no negligence on the part of this answering O.P. not they commit any unfair trade practice which resulted deficiency in service. 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 and compensation as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. The complainant categorically stated that since after purchase of Nokia Mobile Set it developed defect whether with respect to ELS ( entry label screening ) or net work problem / missing USB COHT in the said, which appear to be congenital. Repeatedly he ( herein the complainant ) made contracts with the O.P. no. 1 but they did not change it at all. He has categorized the dates when he met with o.p. no. 3 and O.P. no. 1 for set right the same and to restore it to workable condition. In this days a cell phone has become indispensable to every citizen. If since after purchase of the same it develops defects whether minor or major, the user is at loss as to what to do and his dreams are frustrated. 6. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is gross negligence including deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. It is a fit case for granting relief to the complainant. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 147 of 2013 ( HDF 147 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 3 and dismissed without cost against O.P. no. 1 and ex parte without cost against O.P. no. 2. The O.P. no. 3 M/S. Relieance Digital Retail Ltd., 32, Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, Howrah - 711102be directed to refund the purchase price of mobile set of Rs. 14,598/- ( 15,440-Rs. 842/- as VAT charge) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till actual realization. The O.P. no. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental pain and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant. The O.P. no. 3 is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 21,598/- ( Rs. 14,598+5,000+2,000 ) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing of which it shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till realization, and the complainant also directed to return the old Nokia hand set lying idle at his custody on receipt of refunded amount. 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. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( T. K. Bhattacharya ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. | 
