West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/37/2017

Mou Chandra( Mousam), C/o Jitendra Kumar Chandra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Nice Mobile and Music Represented By.The Proprietor, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharja

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Shri Biswa Nath Konar, President.

            The case of the complainant Mou Chandra (Mousam), in brief, that she purchased a cell phone manufactured by Micromax being model No. S346 amounting to Rs. 4400/- from the O.P No.1 on 05/011/2016.

            At the time of purchase of the same she was assured that the handset would be continued for 3 to 4 days and it will be continued for 24 hours if conversation is going on. But she observed that the charge cell of the battery of the handset is being reduced to 6% to 7% and she further observed that the following day and on the subsequent day the charge of the battery stayed for 8 hours only. The said handset is not O.K. as whenever it is necessary to charge the programme without switch off it is not possible. It was further observed that when net is used charge of the battery cell is being reduced within 4hours.

It is the further case of the complainant that the said mobile set has manufacturing defects which cannot be repaired. She request both the O.Ps to replace the set but in vain.

It is the further case of the complainant that she lodged a complaint before the Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs and Fare business practices, Birbhum Regional Office, Birbhum but though the O.Ps appeared there but refused to replace the said mobile set.

Hence, this case for directing the O.Ps to replace the defective mobile handset of Micromax being No. S346 by a new defect free handset of the same model and to pay compensation of Rs. 50/- per day from 05/11/2016 with other reliefs.

After receipt of notice, O.P No.1 Nice Mobile and Music, Bolpur Santiniketan Road, Birbhum has appeared in this case and prayed for time for filing written version. But thereafter he backed out from the case.

Inspite of due service of notice O.P No.2 Micromax care, Suri, Birbhum did not appear.

Practically the case was heard ex parte against both the O.Ps.

The complainant Mou Chandra has filed evidence on affidavit with documents.

Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant.

DECISION WITH REASONS

It appears from the evidence of the complainant coupled with documents i.e. copy of the cash memo dated 05.11.2016 issued by O.P No.1 that she purchased a cell phone manufactured by Micromax being model No. S346 amounting to Rs. 4400/- from the O.P No.1 on 05/011/2016.

In her evidence she further alleged that she observed that the charge cell of the battery of the handset is being reduced to 6% to 7% and she further observed that the following day and on the subsequent day the charge of the battery stayed for 8 hours only. The said handset is not O.K. as whenever it is necessary to charge the programme without switch off it is not possible. It was further observed that when net is used charge of the battery cell is being reduced within 4hours. It is the further case of the complainant that the said mobile set has manufacturing defects which cannot be repaired. She request both the O.Ps to replace the set but in vain.

            During hearing of the argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted that in the present case the O.Ps have not appeared and not filed any affidavit challenging the evidence adduced by the complainant on affidavit. So, it can be safely said that the case of the complainant is clearly established on the basis of her uncontradicted evidence.

In support of his contention he cited a ruling reported in IV(2006)CPJ 213(NC) where in  a case the complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence but O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined to the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that the allegation of the complainant remain uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record and relying upon the ruling citied above we are constrained to hold that the complainant is able to prove her case by her unchallenged testimony that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and inspite of that the O.Ps have made no attempt to repair or replace the same, which amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly case succeeds ex parte.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 37/2017 be and the same is allowed on ex parte with cost of Rs. 1000/- against the both O.Ps.

Both the O.Ps jointly and severally are directed to replace the defective mobile handset of Micromax being No. S346 by a new defect free handset of the same model and they are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service 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.