:    J U D G M E N T    :

The petitioner has filed a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against proprietor M.S. National Telecom, Krishnagar, Nadia herein OP 1 and proprietor, Sree Durga Mobile, Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia herein OP 2.

Case of the petitioner in brief:-

            The petitioner purchased a mobile of Micromax make from OP 2 on 17.11.14 (Model No. A 082) colour red at a price of Rs. 3650/-.  The mobile started giving problem after few days like spots were coming on the screen and there was problem in the display to.  The mobile was handed over to OP 1, Service Centre of Micromax on 19.08.15 for repair.  The OP No. 1 after repairing the same returned the mobile set to the petitioner on 29.09.15 but he again handed over the mobile on 30.09.2015 as it was not that set which he gave for repair.  OP 1 also received an amount of Rs. 250/- from the petitioner but did not issue any receipt.  OP 1 on 06.10.015 gave a blue coloured mobile to the petitioner whose IMEI number was different from the petitioner’s original red coloured set.   The petitioner being dissatisfied with the service of the OP has come to this Forum for getting the following redressal. 

No. 1:         Direction upon OP 1 to return the original mobile set after proper repair or provide a similar one in new condition

No. 2:         Direction upon OP 1 to give a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony along with litigation cost. 

            The notice of the Forum was received by OP No. 1 but they did not appear on two consecutive occasions and so the Forum declared exparte against them vide order No.5, dtd.  17.12.2015.   The petitioner prayed before the Forum for expunging the name of OP No 2 and it was allowed vide order No. 4, dtd.  30.11.2015. 

            The case was heard exparte on 15.01.2016 against OP No. 1 and petitioner filed written argument on that date too.

From pleadings, affidavit-in-chief of the petitioner as well as the documents filed with the case, we frame the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.

1)         Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OP?

2)         Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service?

3)         Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OPs as prayed for.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Point No. 1.       

The petitioner is a consumer under OP 1, because the petitioner purchased a Micromax Mobile (No. A082) for a price of Rs. 3,650/- and a receipt was issued by OP 2 to that effect.  Petitioner is also a consumer under OP No. 1 as he is the service centre of Micromax mobile. 

            Point Nos. 2 & 3

            Point Nos. 2 & 3 are taken up together for consideration.  The petitioner purchased a mobile of micromax make whose model No. is AO82, colour red and IMEI No. 911373501120090/911373501620594 for a price of Rs. 3650/- on 17.11.14.  The mobile set was sent for repair on 19.08.15 to the service Centre, M/S National Telecom.  The OP 1 charged Rs. 250/- towards repair costs so it is proved that the set was a defective one.  OP did not cooperate with the petitioner by giving after sale service even charging repairing charge.  Hence, the OP is deficient in their service and the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for.  IPO paid is correct. 

            Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2015/133 be and the same is allowed exparte against OP 1.  The OP 1, proprietor M/S National Telecom is directed to return back the original mobile set in good condition or give a new mobile set of same specification along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of order, in default, the amount will carry an interest of @ 6% p.a. from the date of default till final payment. 

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.