Hon'ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
In a nut shell, the case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one mobile set being Model No. IMEI-8633420-51146910102, Realme Branch 50A on 03.06.2022 from O.P. No.1 i.e. the Proprietor, Pintu Communication, Baxirhat (Main Road), P.S. Boxirhat, Dist- Cooch Behar, Pin-736131 at a price of Rs.11,000/- vide Invoice No.936 with warranty period of Twelve months from the date of purchased (Annexure-1 & 2). After purchase of mobile within 12 days the said set did not function and on 16.06.2022 O.P. No.1 received the above noted defective mobile and the mobile will be returned within 7 days to the Complainant and the mobile send Alipurduar Service Centre i.e. O.P. No.2 for repair. After some days O.P. No.1 informed to the Complainant that the mobile was not repaired due to “liquids damage” which was mentioned in the back side of purchased received memo and subsequently O.P. No.1 handed over the defective mobile to the Complainant (Copy of mobile report Annexure-2). Complainant is legally entitled for repairing the mobile as per terms and conditions of warranty card. Subsequently, the Complainant filed written complaint before the O.P. No.1 through registered post on 05.08.2022 which was registered post on 08.08.2022 and on 12.08.2022 the O.P. No.1 received the written complaint but till today O.P. No.1 intentionally did not reply the same (Annexure-4).
The acts of the O.P. No.1 & 2 caused mental pain and agony and Complainant also suffered from financial loss as well as deficiency in service against the Petitioner. The cause of action arose on 03.06.2022 when the Complainant purchased the mobile and on 16.06.2022 when the O.P. No.1 received the mobile and on 05.08.2022 when the Complainant filed written complaint and it is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an order against the O.Ps to refund the cost of mobile set of Rs.11,000/- or repaired the mobile set as new one and directed the O.Ps to pay Rs.30,000/- as mental pain and agony as well as deficiency in service and also directed the O.Ps to pay Rs.10,000/- for non used of mobile and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/-.
As per Order No.13 dated 31.10.2023 and Order No.14 dated 05.12.2023 the case is decided to be heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2 & 3 respectively.
The O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegation in black and white. The positive defence case of the O.P. No.1 in brief is that the Complainant is not maintainable, barred by the C.P. Act, 2019. The Complainant, Sanjoy Shil is a consumer of O.P. No.1 “Pintu Communication, the Proprietor have a reputed branch under the name and style and he sold the said hand set to the Complainant on 03.06.2022 apart from this he has done nothing if any defects arise at all from the sole product, then the liability will be of the manufacturer as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, the O.P. No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 therefore prayed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully, perused the documents of both the parties and heard ex-parte argument against O.P. No.2 & 3 advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant at length.
Points for Consideration
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any, the Complainant is entitled?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration.
Admitted fact is that the Complainant purchased a Realme 50A vide IMEI No. 863342051146910102 from O.P. No.1 i.e. the Proprietor Pintu Communication at a consideration of Rs.11,000/-. 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 Realme 50 A mobile set and disclosed that mobile phone did not function due to switched off his mobile set. The point of the dispute is that the said mobile handset within warranty period started giving problem as alleged by the Complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence on affidavit. The Complainant handed over the said set to the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 told him that the mobile set send to the O.P. No.2, Alipurduar Service Centre for servicing but the O.P. No.2 did not give proper service to the Complainant.
This Commission have gone through the record very carefully. Perused the documents, evidence on affidavit filed by both the parties. It appears that the O.P. No.1 received the mobile handset from the Complainant on 16.06.2022 returned it after defecting “liquid damage”. So it is a defect which occurred within warranty period. The O.P. No.1 received the set but did not provide actual service to remove the defect in the handset. Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps stand proved. Also the Complainant has been deprived the using of the mobile set that he purchased on paying of Rs.11,000/-.
It is the duty of the service provider to render proper service to the customer within the warranty period for his Realme 50A. It is the duty of the O.P. No.1 & 2 to remove the defect and if the same is not repairable, the Complainant 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.
The Complainant in order to establish the case proved the following documents in evidence.
Annexure-1 is the copy of Invoice No.936 dated 03.06.2022.
Annexure-2 reverse page of the original receipt is regarding defect of mobile.
Annexure-3 is the warranty card wherefrom it appears that the product (mobile) warranty within 12 months from the purchasing date. The accessories such as charger data cable have a 6 months warranty. The battery (including internal battery) has a 12 month warranty.
Annexure-4 is the copy of written complaint and postal receipt.
The major allegation of the new product fault stands duly proved by oral and documentary evidence. The O.Ps do not cross-examine with each other.
The date of purchase of the defective product is 03.06.2022 and the date of detection of fault is 16.06.2022 which is well within one year of the purchase. So, the fault in the product was detected within one year of purchase i.e. within the warranty period. So, the O.Ps manufacturer/ dealer/ seller/ service centre is bound to replace the product or repair it at free of cost. Having assessed the entire oral evidence on the form of evidence in chief and documentary evidence of the Complainant it stands well established that the Complainant successfully proved the case against O.P. No.1, 2 & 3. Both the O.Ps failed to discard the specific allegation against them. So, the O.Ps are jointly and/ or severally liable to provide proper service to the Complainant i/d to refund the cost of mobile alongwith compensation and cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/54/2022 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against O.P. No.2 & 3 with cost of Rs.5,000/- each.
The O.Ps are Jointly and/or severally directed to repair the said mobile of the Complainant at free of cost within one month from the date of Final Order in default to refund Rs.11,000/- to the Complainant with a fresh warranty as applicable for a new product. All the parties are further directed that in the event of failure to comply with the order they shall refund Rs.22,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of Final Order till the realization within 30 (Thirty) days from the Final Order.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
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 is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
