West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/15/61

MR. KRISHNA GOPAL AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER(HEAD OFFICE) - Opp.Party(s)

PAYEL NANDI

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri
Kshudiram Basu Bipanan Kendra (2nd Floor)
H. C. Road, P.O. and P.S. Prodhan Nagar,
Dist. Darjeeling.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/61
 
1. MR. KRISHNA GOPAL AGARWAL
BIDHAN ROAD,BHARTI LODGE,3RD FLOOR,SILIGURI,PIN-734001.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE MANAGER(HEAD OFFICE)
GATI K W E COURIER, AMAI DEHI,FULBARI,PIN-734015.
2. STAR CJ NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD.
NEAR APSARA CINEMA, 6TH FLOOR,STAR CJ PLAZA,DR.D.B.MARG GRANT ROAD(LAMINGTON ROAD), MUMBAI-400007.
3. SIMMTRONICS SEMI CONDUCTORS LTD.
C-41,OKHLA,PHASE-1,NEW DELHI-110020.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH DE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. PABITRA MAJUMDER MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Consumer Case No. 61/S/2015

 

Order No.6.

Dt.18.01.16.        The complainant’s case is that the complainant is a bonafide purchaser of a cell phone via OP2 on April, 2014 which was delivered OP No.2 on 21.04.2014 by cash on delivery.  Model Simmtronics XPAD Fundroid Q5, price Rs.3,999/-.  It was contended that if there is manufacturing or damage in delivery, the same product would be repaired in the service centre which would be available at Siliguri.  The complainant got the product in damaged condition suffering in touch screen damage.  LCD was half visible and battery was damaged.  The complainant made correspondence with OP No.1 & 2, but grievance was not attended by the OPs.  Hence, this complainant before this Forum praying for replacement of cell phone and compensation. 

The OP No.1 Gati Limited contested the case by filing written version.  The OP No.1 admitted that the complainant brought the cell phone through on line from the OP No.2.  OP No.2 sent the consignment to the complainant through OP No.1 as transporter or courier being consignment note no.535063460 and OP No.1 delivered the same to the complainant.  OP No.1 is a service provider courier only and OP No.1 does not have the right to open the consignment.  Complainant purchased the consignment through online from OP No.2, but the OP No.1 had not knowledge about the material inside the parcel.  The complaint should be dismissed. 

OP No.1 came for the first time, but did not come later on.  The case has been exparte.

The complainant has adduced evidence in chief and filed some documents. 

  1. Argument Copy,
  2. Original cash memo,
  3. Original warranty card.

In evidence-in-chief, the complainant has stated his case supported by two documents that he purchased the goods.  OP No.1 delivered the goods and indirectly OP No.2 took the price.  The OP No.2 cannot get ride of his responsibility regarding the goods.  There is no other evidence against the case of the complainant.  So, we find nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant. 

 

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

 

The case succeeds. 

The complainant has purchased the goods which is not good condition.  So, obviously, complainant should get his cost incurred by him. 

The paid Rs.3,999/-, he must get this cost of his cell phone.  The complainant has as per record applied before the Office of the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Siliguri.  Although, the said office did not help in any way the complainant, rather they caused delaying of the complainant.  However, for getting total loss, the complainant must compensated by adequate manner as per law laid down Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the cell phone or refund the amount of Rs.3,999/- which was paid to the OPs. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.

The complainant is further entitle to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. 

In the result, the case succeeds exparte. 

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.61/S/2015 is allowed exparte against the OPs.

The complainant is entitled to get replacement of the cell phone of the same model or refund the amount of Rs.3,999/- which was paid to the OPs. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.

The complainant is further entitle to get Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to replace the cell phone of the same model or refund the amount of Rs.3,999/- to the complainant within 45 days of this order.

 

 

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

 

 

The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.

 

 

               

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH DE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. PABITRA MAJUMDER]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.