This case has been filed U/s.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Smt. Lakshmi Dhar Das purchased a new Motorola Mobile Phone, Model-Moto Phone XT 1770 IN 3+32G GL DS PLT, IMEI 1- 356479082085396, IMEI 2- 356479082085404, on 2.6.2018 by paying Rs. 8,029/- only by cash from the shop of the op no. 1 and photocopy of the said Cash Memo issued by op no. 1 and she after purchasing the abovementioned mobile set on 2.6.2018, started using with due care and protection as because the complainant purchased the mobile set by a hard earned savings to fulfill the desire of such a Mobile Set but within few days, abovementioned mobile set starts disturbing and many more problems arose frequently and event the phone used to shut down automatically and she started facing lots of problems due to the disturbance occurring in the mobile set and she went to op no. 1, i.e. mobile shop, where the staff advised her to go to the service centre.

            The complainant further states that according to the advice of the op no. 1 she went to op no. 2 where she was informed by the staff of the service centre that the disputed mobile set was already been serviced previously and after having knowledge that her newly purchased mobile set which is in a disputed condition has been already been serviced previously which raises a big question mark on the genuinty of first hand mobile set and when she informed it to the op no. 1 and demanded orally to change the dispute mobile set and provide her a new mobile set but all went into vain.

            The complainant also states that getting no other option she sent a Legal Notice on 22.1.2019 through her Lawyer to all the ops. to take necessary action and replacing the disputed  mobile set by a new one within 15 days from the receipt of the Advocate’s Notice otherwise she would take legal step before the proper Court of Law and op no. 1 through his Advocate’s letter dt. 4.2.2019 acknowledged the receiving of Legal Notice and even accepted that the disputed mobile was purchased from the shop of the op no. 1 but in the letter the op no. 1 directly mentioned the intension not to bear any liability regarding the disputed mobile set and the demands of the complainants and she compelled to repair the aforesaid mobile set by paying an amount of Rs. 1062/- from the authorized service centre.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 30,000/- for providing fraudulently a disputed mobile set and for mental agony and distress of the complainant and Rs. 15,000/- as a legal expenses which the complainant had to bear to file the present application.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party, as the complainant purchased a new Motorola mobile phone by paying Rs. 8029/- by cash from the shop of the op no. 1. So, she is entitled to get service from the op as a consumer.
2. Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,000,00/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one new Motorola mobile phone, Model- Moto Phone XT 1770 IN 3+32G GL DS PLT, IMEI 2- 356479082085404, on 2.6.2018 by paying Rs. 8,029/- only by cash from the shop of the op no. 1 and after purchasing the above mentioned mobile set the complainant started using the same with due care. The dispute cropped up between the parties when within few days the mobile set started disturbing and many more problems arose frequently and even the phone used to shut down automatically. The complainant informed the op no. 1 and demanded orally simultaneously to change the disputed mobile phone and provides the complainant a new mobile set but eh op no. 1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant having no other alternative send lawyer’s notice to the op. The op no. 1 through his Advocate’s letter dt. 4.2.2019 acknowledge the receiving of legal notice and even accepted the disputed mobile of the complainant was purchased from the shop of the op no. 1 but in the letter of the op no. 1 directly mentioned that the op no. 1 will not bear the liability regarding disputed mobile set and the demands of the complainant. The complainant states and contends that the complainant purchased the disputed mobile by saving her husband’s hard earned money. But the op nos. 1 and 2 nobody gave her proper remedy of the said though the said mobile set was within the warranty period. The complainant states and submits that the complainant purchased the said mobile set as emergency reason as because at time the son of the complainant was under treatment. Getting no other alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint case before this Forum praying direction upon the op for compensation of sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the disputed mobile set and for mental agony and distress of the complainant and further prays for direction for sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the cost of legal expenses.

It appears from the case record that despite received summons the op nos. 1 and 2 did not appear.

Op no. 3 appears and prays for time for filing W/V and proceedings runs ex parte against the op nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the op no. 3 did not submit W/V and proceedings run ex parte against the op no. 3 and the date was fixed for ex parte agreement and passing final order.

In connection with this case some document has been filed by the complainant,

1. Photocopy of cash memo dt. 2.6.2018.
2. Photocopy of service order customer’s copy.
3. Photocopy of tax invoice.
4. Photocopy of postal receipt.
5. Photocopy of advocates letter.
6. Affidavit-in-chief.
7. Brief notes of argument.

We have carefully considered the case supported by the above documentary evidence.

So, it is a fit case to hold that the complainant has proved the allegations of deficiency of service against the opposite parties. There is nothing to disbelieve the complaint of the complainant.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the complainant case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the ops with a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

            The op no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony distress to the complainant.

            All the payments are made within 45 days from the date of this order. At the event of failure to comply with the order op no. 1 shall pay cost of Rs. 50/- for each day delay, it caused on expiry of 45 days by depositing the amount in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.