Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant .. Satyabrata Ghosh
For OP/OPs .. None
Date of Filing : 03.05.2016
Date of Disposal : 29.08.2019
: JUDGMENT & ORDER dtd. 29.08.2019 :
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a mobile set namely Canvas Blaze (MT 500) from the OP No. 3, Sree Durga India Mobile on 07.03.2015 by paying Rs.9,700/- being IMEI No. 911347850346142 and the OP No. 3 issued tax invoice to the complainant. After purchasing the said mobile set, when the complainant switched on the said mobile by inserting his CDMA and GSM SIM card, the mobile set did not get the network of either of the service provider. Thereafter, on 23.06.2015 the complainant gave the mobile set to OP 1, i.e., Micromax Authorized Service Centre for repairing the said mobile set. The OP No. 1 kept the mobile set under their custody from the complainant by issuing a job-sheet for repairing. Though the OP No. 1 returned the mobile set to the complainant but the problem was not solved. Thereafter, on 04.07.15, on 23.07.15 and lastly on 17.08.15 the complainant gave the mobile set to the OP No. 1 but the OP No. 1 did not solve the problem of the mobile set of the complainant. The cause of action arose on 17.08.15 when the OP No. 1 received the mobile set of the complainant and did not return back to the complainant till date. The said mobile set is still now in the custody of the OP No. 1. The complainant finding no other alternative, has filed this case and prayed to pay Rs. 9700/- along with 12% interest p.a., compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for his financial loss and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant has filed some documents in support of his case which are in the record are as below:-
1. The original Tax Invoice of mobile set. 2. G.D.E. to I/C, Kotwali P.S., Krishnagar dtd. 28.04.16 and 3. Copy of job sheets
On the other hand, out of 4 OPs only the OP No. 1 & OP No. 3 have contested the case, but they did not file any written versions.
The specific contention of the OP No. 1, i.e., M/S First Solution is that as the complainant deposited the mobile set to National Telecom and did not deposit the mobile set to their centre so they advised the complainant to communicate to National Telecom to get the mobile set returned.
The specific contention of the OP No. 3 i.e., Sree Durga India Mobile is that as the complainant has no grievance or complaint against them and the matter is absolutely mobile service related issue so OP No. 3 may be released from the case.
Points for discussion
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the CP Act, 1986?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of the OPs?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief /reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
The OP No. 3 admitted the fact that the complainant purchased the Micromax brand mobile set from their shop by paying Rs. 9,700/-. Therefore, it can be presumed that there is a relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs. So, the complainant is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
This point goes in favour of the complainant.
Points No. 2 & 3:
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Annexure – A, i.e., Tax Invoice issued by Sree Durga India Mobile clearly shows that the complainant has purchased a Micromax Brand Mobile Phone being model No. MT-500 on 07.03.2015 from the OP No. 3 by paying Rs. 9,700/-.
The complainant has also filed copy of job sheets dtd. 23.07.15 and 17.08.15. From the job sheets it is also clear that the said mobile set was within the warranty period and the complainant deposited the said mobile set to M/S National Telecom i.e., OP No. 4 for repairing the mobile set.
It is admitted fact that at present the Micromax Service Centre is OP No. 1 i.e., M/S First Solution and OP No. 4 i.e., M/S National Telecom have closed their Service Centre. The OP No. 4 did not contest the present case. It is the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs not to repair the mobile set of the complainant in time. The complainant is not responsible for the internal disturbance of the OPs.
Hence, by raising the said internal dispute of the company, it cannot deny the responsibility towards consumer. It is the duty of the OPs to get the mobile set repaired or to provide a new set and by not providing such services, the OPs have definitely committed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service by neglecting the duty towards consumer/complainant.
Point No. 4:
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
In the net result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D,
That the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.9,700/-(value of the mobile set) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e.07.03.2015 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which a further interest @ 10% p.a. shall be imposed on the total amount till full realization of the entire amount.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for financial loss, harassment, pain and sufferings and Rs. 8,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
Let a plain copy of this judgment/order be supplied to the parties forthwith free of cost.
