First Appeal No. A/160/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/01/2016 in Case No. CC/505/2015 of District North 24 Parganas). Case: Barun Kumar Ojha Vs LG Direct Service Centre and Ors.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Shyamal Gupta, (Presiding Member), (Kolkata)

1. By this Appeal, Appellant/Complainant has challenged the Order dated 28-01-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 505/2015 whereby the complaint has been partly allowed.

2. In a short compass, case of the Complainant, is that, he purchased a mobile handset of M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. from the showroom of Lalani e-Tech City at a cost of Rs. 34,003/- on 03-01-2014. On 25-11-2014, the handset developed certain problems for which he took the said handset to the authorized service centre of the said company at Princep Street Kolkata. After replacing the mother board, the handset was returned to him by the said service centre. However, after few days, the said handset again malfunctioned and so he again took the handset to the service centre for due repairing on 23-12-2014. As ill luck would have it, after some days, another problem cropped up with the handset. So, on 03-02-2015, it was again handed over to the authorized service centre of the OP, who demanded service charge for a sum of Rs. 112/-. Feeling dejected, the Complainant ranged up OP No. 2 on 04-02-2015 and 05-02-2015. He also lodged a written complaint in this regard. On 10-02-2015, he deposited the mobile handset with the service centre of the OPs for doing necessary repairing. After much dilly dallying, the said service centre returned the handset to the Complainant on 07-03-2015. Unfortunately, on the very next day, the handset again became totally defunct. So, the Complainant immediately informed the matter to the OPs. On 10-03-2015, as per the advice of Mr. Debnath (ASM, LG), the Complainant handed over the defective mobile set to the authorized service centre of the company situated at Baguihati. Allegedly, after receiving the handset, the service centre simply kept quiet. Several perseverance of the matter with the concerned authorities in this regard went in vain. Finding no other alternative, Complainant filed the instant complaint.

3. By filing a W.V., it is contended by the OPs that time and again the Complainant deposited the phone on one pretext or the other. Although the OPs tried their best to satisfy the Complainant, it seemed the Complainant had made up his mind not to co-operate with them. Stating that the job sheets themselves speak volumes of the kind of service rendered by the OPs, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

4. Point to be decided is whether the impugned...