Complainant:               Mr. Rahul Chakraborty, Resident of 55,Chandmari Road(N) Badamtala, P.O. & P.S.-Burdwan, Dist.-Purba Bardhaman-713101.

-VERSUS –

Opposite Party:            1. The Managing Director, Slide-Cart Electronic, having its office at 1277(first Floor), Sector-18, Part-II, Yamunanagar, Haryana-135001.

Present                                    : Mohammad Muizzuddeen                -Hon’ble President.

                                                : Mrs. Lipika Ghosh               - Hon’ble Member.

Appeared for the Complainant:                       Debdas Rudra,             Ld. Advocate.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:        Ex parte.

F i n a l  E x P a r t e  O r d e r

          Today is fixed for passing ex parte order. The complainant files hazira. The record is taken-up for passing ex parte order.

       On 08.01.2021, the complainant Mr. Rahul Chakraborty has filed this complaint u/S 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the O.P.

 The case of the complainant in brief is that on 31.10.2019, the complainant placed an order to purchase a ‘Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black)’ which was delivered on 06.11.2019 and the complainant paid Rs.18,490/- from his bank account lying with ICICI Bank, Burdwan Branch. After receiving the said watch, the complainant delivered to use the same but after one month, he noticed defect in the charging device as it was not getting charged and the watch was covered under warranty. So the complainant visited the various servicing centre of Samsung at Kolkata but the said servicing centre has denied to repair the said device during warranty period. The said servicing centre told that the said device was not covered under warranty because the serial number mentioned in the invoice as serial number of the delivered device has not been matched with the serial number of the device. Thereafter, he visited to another authorized service centre at burdwan and requested it to repair the said watch within the warranty period but the said servicing centre of Burdwan also denied to provide services on the selfsame ground. He immediately intimated the said fact to the O.P. by way of e-mail and also lodged complaint before customer care. After receiving mail, the Amazon sent reply dated 14.02.2020 appreciating the effort of the complainant for highlighting the issue and assured to resolve the said issue as soon as possible. The O.P. also assured that he would get the updated invoice in his registered mail within 4-5 days on and from 14.02.2020 but till date he has not received the said invoice. This fact indicates the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as well as unfair trade practice. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2020 through his Ld. Advocate to the O.P. requesting either to provide updated invoice in the registered mail of the complainant or to refund Rs.18490/- for return of defective Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black) with interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but on 23.06.2020, Ld. Advocate Mr. Shubham Jain of Unilegal Solutions, Advocates & Solicitors sent a reply dated 20.07.2020 to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant requesting to furnish the necessary details, such as, correct order ID of the product purchased from the independent third party seller, the registered e-mail address and the registered mobile number of the complainant for proper redressal of the grievances as alleged by the complainant.

       Ld. Advocate for the complainant on 29.09.2020 all the necessary information provided to the O.P. as per their requirement and also requested the O.P. either to provide updated invoice to the complainant or to refund Rs.18,490/- for the same along with interest but in spite of receiving all the required information, the O.P. did not comply with the same. Finding no alternative, the complainant has been compelled to knock the door of the Ld. Commission by filing the complaint.

Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainant prays for directing the O.P. for giving updated invoice or refunding Rs.18,490/- in lieu of return of defective Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black) along with interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for suffering mental pain, agony and harassment along with a litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

D e c i s i o n   w i t h   R e a s o n s

In spite of having receipt of notice on 05.02.2021, the O.P. did not appear to contest the case. Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte. In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and Xerox copies of documents. From the Xerox copies of documents, it is found that the complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black) through on line Amazon.in which was sold by the O.P. at the cost of Rs.18,490/- and another document shows that within the warranty period he contacted with the concerned service centre of the Samsung Electronics and they are denied to repair the same as alleged by the complainant. The complainant also sent the legal notice dated 23.06.2020 giving all required information of the O.P. along with request to provide updated invoice in the registered mail of the complainant or to refund 18,490/- in lieu of return of defective Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black)along with interest and the letter dated 20.07.2020 issued by Ld. Advocate Mr. Shubham Jain of Unilegal Solutions, Advocates & Solicitors replied the legal notice sent by Mr. Rahul Chakraborty on 23.06.2020 and requested to furnish necessary device as stated in Para-4 of the complaint and the Ld. Advocate for the complainant vide his legal notice dated 29.09.2020 supplied the said information and requested which they already narrated in this body of order. But as per evidence of the complainant, the O.P. till now neither to comply with the said request of the complainant or to return the money already paid by the complainant by replacing the defective Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black). By this activity the O.P. has committed the deficiency-in-service under the Consumer Protection Act and the O.P. has also committed negligence in his providing service to the complainant. We find no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of the complainant.

As regards the compensation suffering from harassment, mental pain and agony, the complainant has submitted that till now the O.P. did not provide any updated invoice or to refund all the money already paid to the O.P. and this indicate that the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. Accordingly, the complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only as a result the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that this case be and the same is allowed ex parte but without any cost. The O.P. is directed to give updated invoice or to refund Rs.18,490/- in lieu of return of defective Samsung Galaxy Watch Active (Black) along with interest @10% per annum from the date of 06.11.20219. The O.P. is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Thirty Thousand) only along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only to the complainant by A/c. payee cheque to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of this order failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum till realization.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                 

                                                                                                                                      President

                                                                                                                   D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

            President

   D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

                                                       Member                                                     

                                       D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman