OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 1/2014
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Parag Sarma -Complainant
S/O Late Golak Ch.Sarma
Resident of House No. 56, Wireless Gate
Basistha Pur 1,Guwahati-781006
Under Hatigaon Police Station,
Kamrup (Metro), Assam
-vs-
1) The MobileStore (Retail Outlet) -Opp. parties
Represented by its Manager,
Ananda Bhawan, Lachit Nagar,
G.S.Road,Guwahati-781007,
Under Paltan Bazar Police Station
Kamrup,Assam.
2) The MobileStore Limited
Represented by its Managing Director
Unit - 501 & 502, Kohinoor City,
Kirol Road, Off L.B.S.Marg Kurla (W),
Mumbai-400070, India, having its registered
office at Essar House, 11 K.K.Marg,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034, India
3) REDINGTON INDIA LIMITED(Authorized
Blackberry Service Center) Represented by its
Manager, Mitra Building, Ulubari Chariali, Ashram
Road,Guwahati-781007, under Paltan Bazar Police
Station, Kamrup, Assam.
4) Redington Reverse Logisticis Center Represented
by its Manager, Redington India Ltd. Old No. 11,
New .No. 27, NRS Buldg, Velacherry Rd, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.
5) Redington India Limited, Represented by its Managing
Director, having its registered office at Redington
(India) Limited SPL Guindy House, 95 Anna Salai,
Guindy , Chennai 600032, India.
Appearance-
Ld advocate for the complainant - Mr.Chiranjit Phukan,
Mr.Khanindra Kr.Deka appears for Opp.Party No.3 to 5
Date of argument- 18.7. 2017
Date of judgment- 18. 8. 2017
JUDGMENT
This is a case u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Parag Sarma against The Mobile Store and four others was admitted on 2.1.14 and notices were served on all opp.parties and Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 filed their joint written statement, but Opp.Party No.1 & 2 defaulted to take step and accordingly this case is proceeding on exparte against them vide this forum’s order dtd. 12.11.2014. The complainant side filed his affidavit, but he was not cross examined by Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 side. During the pendency of the case, this case is proceeding on exparte against Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 also vide this forum’s order dtd. 16.10.2015. On 6.4.2016 on the prayer of one Sri Khanindra Deka the exparte order dtd. 16.10.2015 passed against Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 was set aside vide this forum’s order on 6.4.16 and they are allowed to cross examine the complainant side witness and the day of 25.5.16 was fixed for cross examination of complainant side witness, but on that day Mr.Khanindra Deka again appeared for the Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5, but declined to cross examine the C.W. and to give their own evidence and being compelled this forum fixed 24.6.16 for filing written arguments by both the contesting parties and accordingly the complainant sides Ld counsel Mr. Chiranjit Phukan filed written argument for the complainant and one, Sri Khanindra Deka filed written argument for Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 and accordingly the day of 15.9.16 was fixed for oral argument of the parties, but on that day Opp.Party No. 3,4 & 5 side was found absent without step and being compelled we have heard oral argument of the ld advocate Mr.Chiranjit Phukan for the complainant and the day of 30.9.2016 was fixed for delivery of judgment , but on that day the judgment could not have been delivered due to illness of the stenographer and the day of 26.10.16 was fixed for delivery of judgment, but on that day, the judgment could not have been delivered due to resignation of the lone member and then the case is again brought back to the stage of oral argument on joining of member namely Smti Archana Deka Lahkar and on 18.7.17, we have heard oral argument of Ld.advocate of Mr. Chiranjit Phukan for the complainant and also argument of the representative of Opp.Party No.3 to 5, Mr.Khanindra Deka and today we deliver the judgment which is below-
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Blackberry Mobile being Blackberry Curve 9220-India- Black model from Opp.Party No.1 on 29.7.2012 vide invoice No. 15598/6829925 and IMEI.No.of the said mobile being 352660050119796. But after one month of purchasing the same became in-operative and displayed an error message on the screen and then he took the handset to Opp.Party No.1 on 21.8.2012 and the latter kept the same and returned the same after three days after reinstalling software of the said handset ; but the problem again arose just after one week and a problem i.e. battery indicator of the said handset showed low battery just after half an hour of the mobile being fully charged and it also became hot on surface and then he took the handset to Opp.Party No. 1 and the handset was sent to Opp.Party No.3 with the complaint along with him, but it was returned to him on the same day evening after reloading the software again, but the problem reoccurred on the very next day; and then he directly went to Opp.Party No.1 for repairing the same and handed over the mobile to him, but after one month it was replaced by another handset bearing No. IMEI .No. 352660054468348 with a delivery challan dated 11.12.2012 which showed the earlier mobile IMEI . No. 352660050119796 was replaced by another handset bearing No. IMEI No. 352660054468348, but the problem occurred in the said mobile also after two months and then he again visited Opp.Party No.3 in the month of March,2013, but he was not found having the service center was shifted. He, on 18.5.2013, went to Opp.Party No.1 reported the entire matter to him, but they did not respond to his problem and then he revisited Mobile Store (Opp.Party No.1) on 20.5.2013 and deposited the faulty handset and requested them to repair it or replaced it and Opp.Party No.1 issued a receive memo dtd. 22.5.2013 to him and in the said receive memo the address of service center had neither any address of the service center nor any details of the service center and then he visited Opp.Party No.1 for several times to know about the status of his mobile and on 10.6.2013 he sent an E.mail to Opp.Party No.4 explaining his agony, but he had not received any response from them, but received the handset from Opp.Party No.1 which they claimed that it has been replaced by their service center, Opp.Party No.3 and provided him that on product description slip of the said handset and acknowledgement slip stating that the mobile handset bearing IMEI No. 352660054468348 was exchanged by Black Berry Service Center on 2.7.2013 and after receiving the said handset he again found some problem in the said handset on the very next day and he immediately contacted Opp.Party No.1, but the latter did not respond, but Respondent No.1 claimed that the new handset was delivered to him and on verification of the IMEI number it is found that no such replacement had taken place and then he reported the matter to Opp.Party No.1, but the latter did not respond to rectify the defect. Thus, it seem that Opp.Party No.1, in collision with their op.parties, kept the faulty handset without being replaced or rectified shown defects so as to run down the time of warranty, and thereby cheated him. He is a businessman having business at Guwahati in the name style of M/S Sarma Agency which is authorized service center of Bajaj Electrical Ltd., Havells India Ltd. Khaitan Electrical, Orient Fan etc. and for deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties he suffered business loss and also suffered from mental and physical harassment and therefore he prays for direction to the opp.parties to refund the entire cost value of his mobile i.e. Rs.10,800/-and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1,00000/- towards the loss of business he suffered and Rs.5,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
3) The gist of the pleading of the Opp.Party No.3,4 & 5 is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of non-joinder of the manufacturer of the handset namely, M/S Research and Motion Ltd.. The Opp.Party No.3,4 & 5 is the authorized service centers of the manufacturer of the said mobile which provides first level repair service to Black Berry Mobile during warranty period without receiving any consideration. The complainant approached their service center with a complaint of mobile of battery back up poor and over heating problem in the handset and their engineer diagnosed the problem in the said hand set and found hardware problem in it, and then forwarded it to higher level repairing center, appointed by Manufacturer of the said mobile and then they, apprehended delay in repairing, till another handset was given to the complainant and he also took delivery of the said replacement handset vide delivery challan dtd. 11.12.2012 and thereafter he approached Opp.Party No.1 M/S Mobile Store for service of the mobile on 18.5.2013 . They will not responsible for any wrong in the service provided by Opp.Party No.1. They have not committed any deficiency of service towards the complainant, nor they are liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
4) We have perused argument of ld advocate Mr.Chiranjit Phukan for the complainant. We have perused the complaint petition as well as the written statement filed by Opp.Party No.3,4 & 5. It appears to us that the complainant Sri Parag Sarma had on 29.7.2012 purchased one Blackberry Mobile being Blackberry Curve 9220-India- Black model from Opp.Party No.1 namely MobileStore, G.S.Road, Guwahati vide invoice No. 15598/6829925 of which , IMEI number is 352660050119796, Opp.Party No.2, namely Mobile Store Ltd. Kohinoor City, Kirol Road, Off L.B.S.Marg Kurla (W), Mumbai is the main manufacturer of the said mobile. We have also found that Opp.Party No.3, 4 & 5 are the authorized service center of the said kinds of mobile hand set.
(i) We have also found from the evidence produced by the complainant that the IMEI number of the mobile purchased by the complainant is 352660050119796 and at the time of purchasing of the said mobile its value was Rs.10,800/-.
5) In the evidence, the complainant states that the complicacy in the said mobile had first arisen on the very date of its purchase and thereafter on 24.8.2012, 11.12.2012, 18.5.2013, 20.5.2013, 22.5.2013, 10.6.2013 and 2.7.2013. These version of the complainant is admitted by Opp.Party No.3 to 5 in their written statement. They also admitted that the complainant approached their service center (Opp.Party No.1) at Guwahati complaining of battery and over heating problem in the said hand set and then their service engineer diagnosed the problem in the said hand set and found that the said hand-set had hard-ware problem and then they sent the hand-set to higher level repairing center appointed by the manufacturer. Thus, it is clearly established that the hand set of the complainant showed problem within the warranty period . We have also found no ground to dis-believe the version of the complainant that the said hand set had shown problem for the first time on the date of purchase (29.7.2012) and thereafter on 24.8.2012, 11.12.2012, 18.5.2013, 20.5.2013, 22.5.2013, 10.6.2013 and 2.7.2013.
The complainant in his evidence states that while he found that the hand-set was not functioning, he took the hand set to Opp.Party No.1 on 21.8.2012 and the latter kept the same with them, but returned on 24.8.2012 after re-installing the soft ware of said hand-set, but the said hand set yet showed problem; and then he again went to Opp.Party No.1 and reported them the matter and Opp.Party No.1 sent the hand set to Opp.Party No.3 and he also visited the center of Opp.Party No.3 and Opp.Party No.3 told him that the hand set cannot be repaired sooner , but replaced it with another hand set on 11.12.2013 bearing IMEI No. 352660054468348 , but the said mobile too showed problem and then he reported the matter to Opp.Party No.3 on 18.5.2013, but Opp.Party No.3 did not respond and while they did not respond to his problem, he visited the center of Opp.Party No.1 on 20.5.2013 and deposited the said hand set with a request either to repair or replace it and they received the hand set from him without providing proper documents, but Opp.Party No.1 provided him a copy of receiving memo vide service order dtd. 22.5.2013, and thereafter on 2.7.2013 he received a hand set from Opp.Party No.1 which they claimed that it has been replaced by the service center (Opp.Party No.3) and he was provided a product description slip along with a acknowledgement slip, but the said hand set again showed problem on the very next day and then he verified the IMEI No. of the said hand set and found that no such replacement had taken place as the said hand-set bears the said IMEI No. which is 352660054468348 . As per his version, his mobile hand set purchased from OPp.Party No.1 on 29.7.2012 was replaced with the another hand set bearing No. 352660054468348 by Opp.Party No.3 and while he found the said mobile too was defective he returned the said hand set to Opp.Party No.1, but on 2.7.2013 Opp.Party No.1 gave him another hand set stating that said hand set was replaced with a new one and on verification he found that it was the same hand set which he deposited to Opp.Party No.1 i.e. hand set with IMEI No. 352660054468348 and it was also a faulty hand set and on persisting Opp.Party No.1, they refused to rectify the fault or to change the said defective hand set. We have found that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 has not come up to challenge the veracity of this version of the complainant. Therefore, we hold that these version of the complainant is true. Thus, it is found to have been established that after purchasing the hand set the IMEI No. 352660050119796 from Opp.Party No.1, the complainant found the said hand set defective and he then approached Opp.Party No.1 on 21.8.2012 for repairing the same and on 24.8.2012 Opp.Party No.1 returned the hand set to him after re installing the soft ware, but again the said hand set showed problem, and he approached Opp.Party No.1 and reported the matter; and then Opp.Party No.1 sent the said hand set to Opp.Party No.3 ( authorized service center of Opp.Party No.2) and Opp.Party No.3 replaced his hand set with a new one bearing IMEI No. 352660054468348, but the said hand-set too showed defect and he then went to Opp.Party No.1 again and delivered the said hand set to Opp.Party No.1, and Opp.Party No.1 kept the said hand set with a assurance that it will be sent to the service center, but on 2.7.2013 Opp.Party No.1 gave him one hand set stating that the earlier one was replaced and after returning home he verified the said hand set and found that it was a same hand set bearing IMEI No. 352660054468348 which means that his hand set was not replaced as stated by Opp.Party No.1; and the said hand- set again showed defect and he then, approached Opp.Party No.1 and reported the matter , but Opp.Party No.1 refused to receive the said defective hand set. Thus, it is established that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side cheated the complainant by giving him a defective hand set IMEI No. 352660054468348 falsely stating that the hand set which had been given to him in the exchanging the original hand set IMEI No. 352660050119796, which he had purchased from Opp.Party No.1, was also replaced with a new one. Thus, it is a clear case of selling defective hand set to the complainant by Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side and they tried to avoid their liability by replacing the same with a defective hand-set and as such Unfair Trade Practice on the part of Opp.Party No.1 & 2. So, we hold that Opp.Party No.1 & 2 as well as Opp.Party No.3,4 & 5 are liable to return the cost value of the said hand set to the complainant.
6) We have found that the complainant had to suffer a lot after purchasing the Black Berry hand set IMEI No. 352660050119796 from Opp.Party No.1 having he had to visit the office of Opp.Party No.1 & 3 on several occasion with a hope to repair of said mobile, but failed to get it repaired and replaced with a new one. Therefore , we hold that the opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing such harassment to him. Secondly, for selling the said defective hand set by Opp.Party No.3,4 &5 through Opp.Party No.1 & 2 to the complainant, he failed to get mobile service from date of its purchase till today, which indirectly affected his business and caused loss to his business in some percent. So, for such loss of business opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs.10,000/- to him as compensation. Thirdly, for no fault of him, the complainant had to prosecute opp.parties before this forum to get relief and therefore, opp.parties are liable to pay him at least Rs.10,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
7) Because of what has been discussed as above, the complaint against Opp.Party No.1 and 2 is allowed on exparte , but against Opp.Party No.3,4 & 5 is allowed on contest. Accordingly, the opp.parties are directed to refund Rs.10,800/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint ( 2.1.2014) till full payment and also to pay Rs. Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him and another amount of Rs. 10,000/- for causing loss of business to him as well as Rs.10,000/- for cost of the proceeding, to which they are jointly and severally liable . They are directed to make payment of awarded amount within two months and in default the other three amounts shall also carry interest @ 12 % per annum.
Given under our hands and seal on this day the 18th August, 2017.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Smti A. D. Lahkar) (Md.S.Hussain)
Member President
