C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/40
COMPLAINANT : Utpal Biswas
S/o Bhim Chandra Biswas
Vill + P.O. Bhimpur,
Dist. Nadia,
Pin 741167
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The Proprietor
Argha, R.N. Tagore Road,
Chasapara More, Krishnagar
Nadia, Pin 741101
2) The Proprietor
Micromax Service Centre
National Telecom, D.L. Roy Road,
Belodanga Bazar, Krishnagar, Nadia
3) The Proprietor, PCB
Microx Distributor Office,
Netaji Nagar
“E” Block, P.O. Ganganagar,
Madhyamgram, Kolkata 700132
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 19th August, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax mobile set from OP No. 1, M/S Argha on 14.06.10 at a price of Rs. 2900/-. It is his further case that since purchase the set was not working properly, as a result of which he did not use the set. Then he deposited the set at the service centre, i.e., before the OP No. 2 for repair of the same. But it was not repaired by the OP No. 2 properly. So he lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Nadia RO at which the OPs did not appear on call. This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1, Argha has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his contention also that the petitioner purchased a Micromax mobile set from him on 14.06.11. The set was a sealed pack one made by the company and the said seal was broken in front of the complainant at the time of sale of the same. Being fully satisfied the complainant purchased the said product from him. As per warranty guidelines the maintenance and service have to be provided by the company. This OP has no liability or responsible to repair or change the same. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
The OP No. 2 has not appeared in this Forum on receipt of the notice. From the postal report it is available that the door of the OP No. 3 was locked as a result of which the postal authority failed to deliver the notice to the OP No. 3.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OP No. 1 along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant it is available on record that admittedly this complainant purchased a Micromax mobile set from the OP No. 1 on 14.06.10 at a price of Rs. 2900/-. From the document it is available that the complainant produced the said Micromax mobile set before the OP No. 2, who is the Micromax Service Centre on 16.06.10 for repair of the same and the job card issued by the OP No. 2 speaks that the defect was poor battery back up. The OP No. 2 changed the said mobile set and delivered a new one to the complainant, but from the job card issued by the OP No. 2 dtd. 04.12.10 it is available that the second mobile set was produced before the OP No. 2 for repair by the complainant with the defect charging problem. But the said set was neither repaired by the OP nor it was replaced by him. So being aggrieved the present case is filed by the complainant. From the warranty conditions it is available that the repairs under the warranty period shall be carried out by the company authorized personnel only and accordingly the complainant produced the set before the OP No. 2 who is the authorized servicing centre of Micromax for repair of the same. It is available from the documents filed by the complainant that the OP No. 2 neither repaired the second mobile set nor replaced the same also. So we find that it is a violation of the warranty condition laid down by the company. Even the OP No. 2 did not appear before this Forum to contest this case, nor he appeared before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Nadia RO who directed him to appear before him on 28.03.11 for amicable settlement of the dispute. Ld. lawyer for the OP No. 1 submits that the OP No. 1 has no liability in this case to repair or replace the defective mobile set which we hold is not a just and proper argument. Admittedly, this OP sold defective mobile set to the complainant on 14.06.10 at a price of Rs. 2900/-. He did not take any step to make it repaired or replaced by the OP No. 2. So he has not performed his duties as a seller of defective goods to the complainant.
Therefore, on a careful examination of the facts of this case and in view of the above discussions, our considered view is that both the OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for not repairing the Micromax mobile set purchased by the complainant from the OP No. 1 which was a defective one initially. This is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 & 2. We do further hold that the complainant has become able to prove his case and so he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/40 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP No. 1 and exparte against the OP No. 2. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 2,900/- (price of the mobile set) plus compensation of Rs. 500/- due to harassment caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, i.e., in total Rs. 3900/-. The OP No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
