Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
This is an application U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 filed by Sri Ankush Chanda against the O.Ps praying for direction to the O.Ps to return of Rs.12,7000/- as cost of the Mobile set, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost and return back Rs. 118/- as service charge taken by the O.P. No.2.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased Mobile hand set with charger model No. Redmi Note 6 Pro IMEI No.861478045073158 blue colour dated 20.04.2019. After purchase Petitioner used the said Mobile Set but within two months the total set developed battery backup fault and heating problem. On 23.07.2019 Petitioner contacted with O.P. No.1 but he did not receive the Mobile i.e. the proprietor Phono Retail Private Limited who did not co-operate with Petitioner and said that the Mobile was in warranty period and advised the Petitioner to contact authorized Service Centre, Redmi Mobile Service Centre i.e. O.P. No.2.
Accordingly Petitioner went to the Office of the Service Centre i.e. O.P. No.2 on 23.07.2019 and submitted his Mobile set with all accessories. As per the Petitioner, O.P. No.2 claimed service charge of Rs.118/-. Petitioner also stated that O.P. No.2 illegally received Rs. 118/- for software update within warranty period but he (O.P. No.2) did not give proper service of Mobile set.
The acts of O.P. No.1 & 2 caused mental pain and agony and Petitioner also suffered from financial loss and harassment. The O.Ps adopted illegal trade practice towards the Petitioner.
Subsequently the Petitioner filed a written complaint before the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice on 19.09.2019 for medraim but after appearing O.P. No.2 did not settle the matter and also illegally demanded Rs. 13,00/- for battery change. As such the Petitioner has filed this case for proper relief which is specifically mentioned in the complaint petition.
Summons upon both the O.Ps were duly rewarded. But neither of them did not turn up to contest this case and hence the case was heard ex-parte against them.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully, perused the documents of the Petitioner and heard ex-parte argument advanced by the Agent of the Petitioner at length.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case is maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?
- To what other relief if any, Complainant is entitled?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for consideration.
Admitted fact is that the Petitioner purchased a Redmi Note 6 Pro from O.P. No.1 i.e. the proprietor Phono Retail Private Limited at a consideration of Rs. 12,700/-. It is evident from the evidence on record that while he was using the Mobile Set some problems arose and he went to the shop of O.P. No.1 with the Redmi Note 6 Pro Mobile set and disclosed that due to battery backup fault & heating problem the Mobile Phone was not working. The O.P. No.1 did not Co-operate with the Petitioner and advised him to go to the authorized Service Centre of Redmi Mobile Service Centre i.e. O.P. No.2.
It is further evident from the evidence on record that the Petitioner on 23.07.2019 went to the shop of O.P. No.1 and submitted his Mobile hand set with all accessories but he(O.P. No.1) did not receive the Mobile Phone and the Petitioner submitted the Mobile set to O.P. No.2 i.e. Redmi Service Centre.
It is found that the Petitioner purchased the Redmi Note 6 Pro Mobile hand set on 20.04.2019 and it appeared defective within the warranty period. It is evident from the documents that the Petitioner was given one year warranty on the product i.e. the Mobile set Redmi Note 6 Pro. We found that neither the O.P. NO.1 i.e. the proprietor nor the O.P. No.2 i.e. Service Centre fulfilled their promise. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 & 2. It also amounts to unfair trade practice.
One year warranty was given to the Petitioner for his Redmi Note 6 Pro and it was found defective within warranty period. It is the duty of the O.P. No.1 & 2 to remove the defect and if the same is not repairable, the petitioner should be compensated by another set of the same type or return the value, which he paid at the time of purchase of the said Mobile set. But the O.Ps did nothing in this regard. So the Petitioner is entitled to get the relief in this case.
With this all the issues are disposed of.
Hence,
it is ordered
That the present complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. No.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to return the price of Rs.12,700/- to the Petitioner which he paid for the Mobile set in question and also Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service to the Petitioner. The O.Ps are liable to pay aforesaid amount jointly and/ or severally.
The O.P. No.2 is also directed to refund Rs.118/- to the Petitioner which was taken from him as service charges. On Compliance of the aforesaid order by the O.Ps, the Petitioner shall return the said Mobile set to the O.Ps forthwith.
The O.Ps are directed to comply the aforesaid direction within a month from this date failing which the Petitioner shall be at liberty to realize by execution this award.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
