FINAL ORDER
The case of the Complainant as culled out from the record in brief is that the Complainant, Sri Jiban Roy purchased a Nokia mobile hand set from the O.P, i.e. The Proprietor, M/S Mobile World on 29-05-2014 but after 3 Hrs. from the purchase of the said hand set of the complainant automatically going OFF mode. Then the said hand set became ON mode after its switch on. But after 3/4 Hrs. again the said mobile automatically going OFF mode. After that day the complainant went to the O.P and informed them about the said problem. After examine the said mobile hand set the O.P directed to the complainant to handover the set with assured that after 7 days they will replaced the defective mobile set with a new one mobile hand set. Accordingly, the complainant went to the O.P for replacement of the defective set but the O.P denied replacing the said hand set.
Thereafter the complainant met with the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar for mediation and after 3 hearing, dated 16-07-2014, 13-07-2014 & 24-07-2014 the O.P decided to replace the battery within 7/10 days. Accordingly, the complainant went to the O.P after 7/10 days i.e. 04-08-2014 & 05-08-2014 to take back the said set but the O.P did not returned back the same. On 06-08-2014 the complainant informed to the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar about the said matter and they tried but all in vain. Thus, the complainant suffered from mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment by the O.P and finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Complainant has filed the present case on 08-08-2014 with one I.P.O. of Rs.100/- against the complaint value of Rs.17,330/-. Accordingly DF Case No. 53/2014 registered and after hearing of admission the case was admitted for further proceeding.
The notices were issued to the O.P. But the O.P did not appear despite receiving the notice and the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P.
In the light of the contention of above facts the following points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Whether the Opposite Party has any deficiency in service by not replacing the Mobile handset of the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed/original documents in the record along with the Evidence on affidavit of the Complainant and heard argument in full of the complainant.
Point No.1.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased a Mobile Hand Set from the Opposite Party on 29.05.2014 with payment of Rs. 1330/- and the Opposite Party issued a money receipt in favour of the Complainant as such we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant is the Consumer of the Opposite Party as per section 2 (1) d (ii) of the C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2.
Both the complainant and O.P. are residents/carrying on business within the district of Cooch Behar. The complaint valued at Rs.17,330/- at valorem which is within prescribed limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case.
Point No.3.
Evidently, the Complainant purchased the Mobile Hand set from the Opposite Party with payment of Rs. 1330/- on 29. 05. 2014. It is the case of the Complainant that since after purchase the said set it started various problems which also admitted by the O.P. The Opposite party did not replace the Mobile Hand set even after observing the defect in the hand set. The O.P. also agreed to replace the set before the Mediation Table of the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice but failed.
It appears from the Annexure “B” that the O.P. received the Mobile Hand Set from the Complainant for servicing on 24.07. 2014. It also appears from the Annexure “C”, the Hand Set Manual, that the alleged set carries 12 months warranty from the date of purchase and the Clause 5 of Warranty Terms and Condition speaks that “The defective handset/battery/charger, which are within the warranty period, shall be replaced with a new handset/battery/charger within a reasonable period of time by the retail outlet.” Thus it is crystal clear that the O.P. violated the terms and condition of the warranty. Moreover, the O.P. received the set with assurance to repair/replace the set but did not do that within a reasonable time. Complainant knocked the door of the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice; O.P. appeared there but did not replace the set even after given assurance. The O.P. took several times but badly failed which also caused mental agony and sufferings of the Complainant. The Complainant suffered a lot due to such negligent act and conduct of the O.P. and deprived from using the mobile handset since after purchasing the same, which certainly falls under the ambit of section 2 (1) (g) of the C.P. Act 1986.
It is pertinent to mention that the O.P. did not appear before this Forum to contest the case even after receiving the Notice that means that the O.P. has nothing to challenge the case.
Point No.4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the foregoing discussion we are in a considered opinion that the O.P. has deficiency in service by not replacing the handset as per warranty condition and the complainant is entitled to get relief.
Thus, the case succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.53/2014 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by the O.P. to the Complainant. The O.P. is directed to replace the Mobile Handset with similar description and handed over the same to the Complainant within 30 days as per terms and condition of the warranty with compensation of Rs. 1000/-. The O.P. is further directed to comply the entire order within time frame in default the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
