DATE OF FILING : 09.09.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 21.12.2016.
DATE OF ORDER : 19.05.2017.
Sri Raju Das,
son of late Madan Mohan Das,
35, Abhoy Guha Road, Liluah,
Howrah 711204. ……….. ……………………………….…………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Mr. Santosh Jha,
the proprietor, Reliance Retail Limited,
( formerly Reliance Fresh Limited )
Reliance Dx Mini, Shop at GF,
268/2, G.T. Road, Liluah, P.S. Belur,
Howrah 711204.
2. The Service Manager,
Balaji Enterprises at 37, Dr. Abani Dutta Road,
Gaganchal Shopping Complex, Shop no. 76, Salkia,
Howrah 711106.
3. The Sales Manager,
Intex Technologies ( India ) Ltd.,
D 18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II,
New Delhi 110020.…………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Sri Raju Das, against the o.p. no. 1, Mr. Santosh Jha, , the proprietor, Reliance Retail Limited, & two others, praying for direction upon the o.p. 2, the Service Manager, Balaji Enterprises, at 37, Dr. Abani Dutta Road, Gaganchal Shopping Complex, Shop no. 76, Salkia, Howrah, to handover the mobile phone of the petitioner being Intex GSM Aqua Y2 Ultra (Champ) Dual SIM after proper repairing and also direct the o.ps. to return the purchase amount of said mobile phone being Rs. 3,999/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased one mobile set being model no. Intex GSM Aqua Y2 Ultra (Champ) Dual SIM from o.p. no. 1, Santosh Jha, at a consideration of Rs. 3,999/- on 10.09.2015 for which o.p. no. 1 issued money receipt dated 10.09.2015. Few months after purchase, some problems occurred in the said mobile phone and it was automatically stopped and became dead. The petitioner went to the shop of o.p. no. 1 and told him about the problem and the o.p. no. 1 told the petitioner to bring the mobile set and take it to o.p. no. 2, Service Centre, for repairing the same on 16.5.2016. The o.p. no. 2 demanded Rs. 80/- but the petitioner did not want to pay as it was within the warranty period. Thereafter petitioner having no other alternative paid Rs. 80/- and the o.p. no. 2 issued job sheet. Again on 25.5.2016 the petitioner went to the shop of o.p. no. 2 who checked the mobile and detected some problems like charging related problem etc. and demanded Rs. 910/- and the petitioner actually paid Rs. 500/- but the o.p. no. 2 did not handover the set and lastly being disgusted the petitioner filed this case as the o.p. no. 3 could not solve the problem.
- In spite of deemed service the o.ps. did not appear and thus the case is heard ex parte against them.
- The only point to be decided here is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- In support of his case the petitioner filed only affidavit in evidence as well as documents being his purchase receipt to prove the fact that he purchased the mobile set being no. IntexGSM Aqua Y2 Ultra (Champ) Dual SIM from o.p. no. 1, Santosh Jha,at a consideration of Rs. 3,999/- on 10.09.2015and the job sheets proving the fact that he approached the o.p. no. 2 for servicing the same. The oral and documentary evidences available before the Forum proved the fact that the mobile of the petitioner went out of order within the warranty period and even if he got the same repaired on payment of money yet the mobile could not function properly. From the warranty card it is noticed that the said mobile set carries 12 months warranty from the date of purchase of the phone and/or 15 months from the manufacturing date and and in the instant case the petitioner purchased the phone on 10.09.2015 and the same out of order within the warranty period on 16.05.2015 and the case was filed also within the warranty period as the mobile phone could not be repaired properly by the o.p., Service Centre.The oral and documentary evidences adduced and produced by petitioner proved the case of the petitioner as all the evidenceswent unchallenged and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner who proved his case ex parte.
In the result, the application succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 292 of 2016 ( HDF 292 of 2016 ) be and the same is allowed ex parte with costs against the o.ps.
The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. The o.ps. are directed to handover the mobile phone of the petitioner after proper repairing or return the purchase amount of Rs. 3,999/- and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of proceeding within 30 days from the date of this order.
All the above orders would be complied within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the petitioner, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
