West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/152/2016

Satyajit Mondal, C/O P.Kr Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

YU Televeutures Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

The complaint filed by Satyajit Mondal is that he purchased a mobile phone being Model No. YU5010A (Black and Silver). From the very first day of purchase of the mobile phone, it began disturbance. The complainant went to the Micromax Service Centre at Rampurhat and made complaint. Micromax Service Centre took the handset for checking the problem. After 15 days the handset was returned to the complainant. The complainant found that the problem was not removed at all. The complainant further went to the Service Centre. Micromax Service Centre at Rampurhat took handset for a month to repair the problem. But the defect did not remove. The complainant went to Service Centre and lodged complaint to YUPHRIA for 4times but they did not able to remove the problem. Having no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum for proper relief.

YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd., O.P No.1 and Raju Service Centre, Rampurhat, O.P No.2 appeared but did not contest the case. The case has been heard ex parte against them vide order No. 10 dated 22.08.2017.

Upon pleading of the party the following points are to be considered for discussion.

Points

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. Is complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

The points being interlinked each other are taken together for discussion.

The complainant purchased a handset of mobile phone being Model No. YU5010A (black and silver) from New Paradise Mobile Centre, Nalhati on 06.07.2016 vide cash memo No. 983. After purchase of the above handset the complainant found problem to operate it. He went to Service Centre of Micromax Mobile at Rampurhat (O.P No.2) on August 2016. So, the complainant is a consumer.

The complainant went to the service centre for the problem of the handset. Each time O.P No.2 held the handset not less than 15 days for repairs. But O.P No.2 failed to repair it. It is clear from the job sheets. The job sheets show that the complainant went to the service centre for several times and the service centre could not repair it. According to warranty statement of op No.1, terms and conditions No.3 says, “for the entire warranty period YU or its authorized personnel will at their discretion without any charges and subject to choose 6 repairs or replace a defective product. Repair or replacement may involve the use of same or equivalent reconditioned unit. YU will return the repaired handset or can replace with another same or equivalent handset to the customer in full working condition. All replaced faulty parts or components will become the property of YU.”

From the two job sheets submitted by the complainant reveals that the problem of the handset is irrepairable. So, it is defective one and the defect has been detected from the very beginning of usage, i.e. within the warranty period. As per terms and conditions of the warranty statement the complainant prayed for replacement of the handset to the O.Ps but the O.Ps refused to replace it. This is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Deficiency in service of the O.Ps has been proved. The complainant is entitled to get a new and equivalent handset. He is also entitled to get Rs. 2500/- as harassment cost and Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 152/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the O.Ps  with cost of Rs. 2,000/-

The O.P No. 1 is directed to replace a new and equivalent defect free handset of mobile phone Model No. YU5010A to the complainant. He is also directed to pay Rs. 2500/- for harassment cost. These must be made through O.P No.2 within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.