The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a cell phone being item description ‘Samsung A 800’ bearing serial No.353004/07/093940 /5353005/07/093940/2 from the show-room of O.P. No.1 amounting to Rs.29,800/- including tax on 07.11.2015.

            At the time of purchase the said phone the complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. No.1 as an advance money.  In this regard the O.P. No.1 issued a money receipt bearing No.CN/RV/1516/01475 to the complainant and the rest amount of Rs.19,800/- paid by the complainant through EMI in seven monthly equal installments i.e. Rs.2872/-, which started from January, 2016.

            Accordingly, the EMI of Rs.2872/- has been debited from the account of the complainant which is lying in UCO Bank, Bandel Branch.  O.P. No.1 has already debited the seven equal monthly installment totaling Rs.20,104/-. Though the O.P. No.1 received total Rs.30,104/- instead of Rs.29,800/-.

            From the date of purchase of the said phone the complainant suffering mental pain and agony due to frequent disturbance and technical problem in the cell phone.  The complainant visited the O.P. No.1 & 2 at every interval to resolve the matter and O.P. No.1 & 2 have undertaken to resolve the dispute of the phone.  But problem was again arose.  The complainant lodged the complaint before the O.P. No.2, Service Centre vide docket No.4219125318 & 4219723509.

            On 16.8.2016 the O.P. No.2 requested the complainant to deposit the cell phone before the O.P. No.2, Service Centre.  The complainant deposited the cell phone before the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 issued a bill bearing No.4219723509.

             That, on 20.8.2016 the complainant went to O.P. No.2 to take delivery of the said phone.  The O.P. No.2 has not explained about the dispute of the phone.  O.P. No.1 has not replaced the same by a new one.  For this reason the complainant refused to take delivery of the phone.

         That the repeated harassment of the complainant for not proper functioning of the said cell phone and non-cooperation regarding the replacement of the said item by O.P. No.1 to 3 within warranty period, tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

            The complainant sent the legal notice to the O.Ps. through his advocate.  O.P. No.2 received the notice but O.P. No.1 & 3 did not receive the legal notice. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Ld. Forum praying for a direction upon the O.Ps. to replace the cell phone by a new one of same description with proper warranty from the date of delivery or refund the entire amount of Rs.30,104/-, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

            Despite receiving notice O.P. did not turn up and filed no written version.  So, the proceeding run exparte against the O.P. vide order No.7 dated 19.01.2017. 

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in chief which is nothing but replica of complaint petition, so it is needless to discus.

The O.P. No.3 preferred a revision petition being No. RP/76/2017 before Hon’ble State Commission, W.B.  challenging the ex-parte order of this Forum, Hon’ble State Commission,WB, vide its order dated 29.3.2018 allowed the revision on contest and set aside the exparte order of CDRF, Hooghly subject to payment a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and directed the parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 10.5.2018, when revisionist shall invariably pay due cost and submit written version i.d. the Ld. Forum shall proceed with the case ex-parte.  It appears from the case record that the revisionist/O.P. No.3 did not turn up on or after 10.5.2018 before this Ld. Forum and failed to file written version in accordance with the order of Hon’ble State Commission.  So, this Forum vide its order dated 26.6.2018 proceed the case ex-parte and allowed the prayer of the complainant for filing brief notes of argument.

That on 20.8.2018 the complainant filed brief notes of argument and advanced argument exparte. 

From the face of the case record it appears that the complainant being a consumer purchased a mobile phone from the O.P. No.1 with financial assistance from UCO Bank.  The invoice of the said purchase depicts that cost of the mobile phone is Rs.29,800/- and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash as advanced money remaining Rs.19,800/- was paid in equal monthly installments from the bank. Instead of Rs.19,800/- as due amount the O.P. No.1 collected Rs.20,104/- which seems to be unfair in the eye of this complainant. Immediately after purchase the said mobile phone suffers from various technical defects.  As a result the complainant compelled to go to O.P. No.2 being the Service Centre, who on his turn failed to provide redress to this complainant.  Getting no alternative the complainant informed the matter to the O.P. No.3, but O.P. No.3 also failed to provide redress.  For which this complainant preferred the recourse of this Forum praying for direction upon the O.P.  In the course of proceeding the O.P. despite receiving the notice did not turn up and did not file written version.  So, the proceedings run exparte against them. 

From the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents it is palpably clear that the complainant purchased the disputed mobile set from the O.P. No.1 produced by O.P. No.3.  It is pertinent to mention that the said mobile set after purchase became non-functioning within the warranty period.  So, this complainant approached to the O.P. No.2 for repairing but he could not repair the same. So it was the duties of the opposite party to redress the dispute of the complainant either repairing the mobile set or if it is not repairable then replace it by a new one. The opposite party no.3 being the manufacturing company also took no measure to settle the dispute of this complainant. They only tried to escape from their liability.  It is a bare instance of deficiency of the opposite party for which they are responsible to redress the complainant.  

    Considering the facts and circumstances we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get a new mobile set of same brand, same feature and same cost or may be of higher side. Since after the purchase the complainant suffered pain for not getting proper service so the complainant is entitled to get compensation from this OP.  Under compelling circumstance the complainant had to approach this Forum so he is entitled to get litigation cost from this opposite party. 

 Consequently complaint is allowed on ex parte against the opposite party no 1-3 with a litigation cost amounting to Rs.6000/-.

 Opposite party No.3 is directed to deliver a new mobile set of same brand, same feature & equal cost or may be of higher side which the complainant purchased from the OP No.1.

 The OP No.1 to3 are jointly and or severally directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.8100/- to this complainant. 

    All the payments are to be made within 45 days from the date of passing this order.

     At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

    Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.