This case record is taken up today for judgement and order ex-parte.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a LEE MAX-2 Mobile set online from the O.P. No. 2 vide invoice dated 01.10.16 for Rs. 17,999/- . No sooner had two months passed, than the mobile set started giving various problems and thus was found of no service. On 24.11.16, the mobile was taken to the O.P. No. 1 for making it serviceable by repair. The O.P. No. 1 received the set and verbally assured the complainant that it would be delivered after repair by 1(one) month.
But the assurance of the O.P. No 1 proved false and till 03.01.17 no information was received by the complainant from O.P. No.1. The complainant contacted the customer care service over telephone No. 1800-3010-1838 but in vain. Thereafter several e-mail were sent but the complainant received no positive reply.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant sent a notice to LEEO Mobile customer care service on 15-02-17 by post. But the customer service centre preferred to remain silent. Thus the complainant became victim of unfair trade practice of the O.P. No. 2 and the O.P. No. 1 showed deficiency in service. Hence is the case.
A perusal of the case record reveals that the notice to the O.P.s were duly served. Notice to the O.P. No. 2 was sent by registered post from this Forum but the notice was received back with the postman’s endorsement “refused”. O.P. No. 1 received the notice on 25.05.17 but he neither appeared nor submitted any written version.
Hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.s.
The complainant has filed the following documents in support of his case:-
- Certificate of mobile voucher from O.P. No.2,
- Receipt of the job-sheet issued by O.P. No.1,
- 02(two) no.s of e-mail dated 04.01.17 from the complainant and reply dated 07.01.17 of the LEE Eco.
Support India to the complainant.
- 06 (six) no.s of e-mail dated 10.01.17 and 13.01.17as reply of the LEE Eco. Support India to the complainant.
- Letter dated 15.02.17 of the complainant to LEE Eco mobile customer care including postal receipt and track consignment.
The Complainant falls within the definition of consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He bought the mobile set for a consideration of Rs. 17,999/- through online. In this complaint, the value of goods/services and the compensation claimed does not exceed Rs. 20,00,000/-. Hence this Forum have the pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant hails from Siliguri and online purchase was made from here, and as such the cause of action arose at Siliguri. The complainant hails from Siliguri and O.P. No. 1 resides/ carries on business at Siliguri. Hence, this Forum have the territorial jurisdiction also. Thus this case is maintainable in this Forum u/s-11 of the C.P. Act 1986.
The complainant led evidence and also submitted written notes on argument. As the O.P.s did not come to contest the case, the complaint was heard ex-parte. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the documents and statement of the complainant can not be discarded. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the complainant. As such the complainant’s case succeeds ex-parte.
Hence it is
- O R D E R E D -
That the case No. 32/S/17 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P.s.
The No.1 and 2 are directed to pay either jointly or severally to the complainant a sum of Rs. 17,999/- being the price of the mobile set, along with compensation of Rs.7000 for mental pain agony and harassment.
Ops no.1 and 2 are directed to pay the above sums within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount 17999+7000=24999 will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation,
In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant shall at liberty to get this order executed through this Forum as per law.
Copies of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.
