Date of filing             :    06.04.2018.

Decided on                :    20.08.2019.

J U D G E M E N T

Bibakananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant-Sri Sanjay Panchal against the above-named O.ps. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

         Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

         On 23/06/2017, the complainant purchased a handset of swipe WI47189 Elite Note from O.p. no.1 through the proforma O.p. by paying a sum of Rs.7,063/-. Soon after purchase, said mobile started some problem and the complainant reported the matter to the customer care centre of the O.ps. and they changed the handset on 02/07/2017 by a new mobile set of same model. Even thereafter, the mobile set was found with some problem as earlier and on 30/08/2017, the complainant went to the service centre of O.p. no.2 and after checking the same, O.p. no.2 kept the mobile set for repairing and gave a job card to the complainant. Unfortunately, the O.p. no.2 did not return the mobile set after it’s repairing to the complainant.

         Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.ps. either to return the mobile set after it’s repairing or to replace the mobile set by a new one or to refund the price thereof and for an order of compensation and cost.

         O.p. nos.1 to 3 received notice of this case but they did not appear to contest this case for which the case was ordered to be heard ex-parte against them. Proforma O.p. no.4 appeared and filed w.v. but thereafter O.p. no.4 did not appear for which the case was ordered to heard ex-parte against the O.p. no.4 also.           

POINT FOR DECISION

Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he has also filed copies of relevant documents in support of his case.

We have gone through the said evidence of the complainant and the documents filed by him. It appears that in his evidence, the complainant has fully corroborated his case of the petition of complaint and the documents, filed by him, also lend support to the case of the complainant.

So in view of that said evidence of the complainant and the documents filed by him, remaining un-challenged, it is held that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to get the reliefs against the O.p. nos.1 to 3. Hence,

            it is,

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case no.125/2018 is allowed ex-parte with cost against the O.p. nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed ex-parte without cost against the proforma O.p.no.4.

O.p. nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed either to replace the mobile set in question to the complainant by a new one of same model or to refund Rs.7,063/- to the complainant within 2(two) months from this date of order and they are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 2(two) months from this date of order.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

Dictated  &  corrected by   me.

Bibekananda Pramanik,

President, D.C.D.R.F.,

Howrah.