IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 53/S/2015.                          DATED : 22.11.2016.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

COMPLAINANT             : PRAVEEN JHANWAR,  

  S/O Late Puran Chand Jhanwar,

  C/O- Praveen Traders, Naya Bazar,

  P.O. Siliguri – 734 005, Dist.- Darjeeling.

  Mob. No. 94340 20698

O.Ps.             1.                      :  THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

   LD Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

   A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Centre, Saket,

   New Delhi – 110 017.

                                    2.                     : THE SALES EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

  Filpcart.Com

  W.S. Retail Service Pvt. Ltd.,

  Khasra No 435, Road No.04,

  Lal Dora Ext, Mohipalpur, Delhi – 110 037.

                                    3.                     : THE MANAGER,

  M/s Aducia Service Centre,

  Authorized Service Centre of L.G.,

  Udhamsingh Sarani, P.O.- Siliguri – 734 001,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

J U D G E M E N T

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a mobile through cash payment of Rs.24,999/- on 31.12.2013 from the OP No.2.  On 19.08.2014 the screen of the mobile was broken.  The complainant approached to the OP No.3, the authorised service centre of OP No.1 and lodged complaint.  The OP No.3 asked the complainant to deposit Rs.5,000/- for replacement of the broken screen.  The complainant did it but the OP intimated the complainant the mobile phone was not repairable and company will pay entire amount of the mobile phone including repairing charges Rs.5,250/- and

Contd……..P/2

-:2:-

 asked to deposit all the documents of the mobile phone.  The complainant deposited all these documents, but all in vain.  Thus this case praying for compensation and other reliefs.     

The OP No.2 appeared and filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  OP No.2 has stated that he is carrying on business for selling of flip cart goods and others.  The OP No.2 submits that other OPs are concerned with the production and providing service to the consumers.  OP No.2 did not give any warranty of the goods to the complainant.  OP No.2 has no facility or technical knowledge to ascertain the defect of the product.  Accordingly, OP No.2 is not liable for any allegation raised by the complainant. 

OP No.2 did not appear to contest the case.  So, the case proceeds exparte against the OP No.2.          

          To prove the case the complainant has field the following documents :-

1.       Bill No.DEL20131200292928 dated 31.12.2013 for Rs.24,499/-.

2.       Service Centre Invoice No.539 dated 27.08.2014.   

3.       Service Centre Invoice No.601 dated 05.09.2014.

4.       Job Sheet dated 27.09.2014.

5.       Job Sheet No.141015072649 dated 15.10.2014.

          Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief.

OP No.2 has filed evidence-in-chief.

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason             

          Both issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

          From the evidence and documents of both sides it appears that complainant purchased the article from the OP No.2.  But the same was produced by OP No.1 and OP No.3 is service centre.  OP Nos.1 & 3 did not appear before this Ld. Forum.  The said phone was deposited with OP No.3.  Later OP No.3 returned the same to the complainant on 27.01.2014.  Again the complainant deposited the said mobile phone to the OP No.3.  In this way the OP No.3 has received the mobile phone on several occasions and took money also from the complainant on several occasions about ten times.  But OP No.3

Contd……..P/3

-:3:-

failed to remove the defect.  OP No.1 & OP No.3 must have jointly responsibility towards the complainant.  So, the complainant would get the goods in a good condition and usable condition.  But the OP No.1 & 3 failed to discharge their duties with due care and attention towards the complainant.  Therefore, the OP No.1 & 3 are responsible for causing negligence and deficiency in service towards the customer i.e., the complainant in this case.          

So, after a great deliberation and material on record, it appears that the material is sufficient to prove the negligency and deficiency service of OP Nos.1 & 2.  Therefore, the claim of the complainant is allowed.

As per nature of this case, the complainant is entitled to get the whole price of the mobile phone and compensation for harassment and litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 3. 

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.53/S/2015 is allowed exparte against the OP Nos.1 & 3 with cost and dismissed on contest against the OP No.2, but without any cost.

The complainant is entitled to get Rs.24,999/- being the price of the mobile and Rs.5,250/- being the repairing charges of the said mobile from the OP Nos.1 & 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony from the OP Nos.1 & 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 3. 

The OP Nos.1 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay Rs.24,999/- being price of the mobile and Rs.5,250/- being repairing charges of the mobile, by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

Contd……..P/4

-:4:-

In case of default, the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.40,249/- from the date of this order till full realization.

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 parties free of cost.