DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _33_ OF ___2016__
DATE OF FILING : 6.4.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 29/8/2016_
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Dr. Samir Paul,s/o late Sripada Paul of P-57, Hostel Colony, Hindusthan Cables, P.S. Salanpur, Burdwan, W.B Pin713335.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. of PS Arcadia Central, 5th Floor, Plot no.4A, Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani( Camac Street), Kol-17.
2. M/s Saarang Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 188C, Rash Behari Avenue, Kol-29
3. “Teknoplaza” , an authorized Service Centre of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Binoy Giri Apartment, Fartabad More, Garia Station Road, P.S. Sonarpur, Kolkata- 84.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
The short of the complainant is that he has purchased one mobile phone being Model no.E2115/XPERIA-E4/DS/B on 18.9.2015 from the O.P-2 who is a franchise of O.P-1 under heading “Sony Centre” on payment of Rs.10,990/- including taxes through Invoice no.1651 dated 18.9.2015 . It has alleged that within two days of purchase the complainant is facing lot of problems for non-availability of network coverage as well as stoppage of functioning of the mobile automatically in regular interval , when the other mobile under the same network is functioning satisfactorily and lastly on 30.9.2015 said mobile shut down permanently which was reported to the O.P-2 and according to his advice the said mobile having IMEI No. 359626061910286 was placed with the O.P-3 , authorized Service Center of O.P nos. 1 and 2 who granted receipt of the defective mobile set noting date of invoice dated 18.10.2015 in place of 18.9.2015 admitting technical condition is faulty. Thereafter, the O.P handed over another set of same model with different IMEI Number to the complainant noting further technical condition faulty and software :updated. The said document is annexed with the complaint. But the same
problem was repeated as well as unsatisfactory services. Accordingly complainant again placed the defective mobile on 18.11.2015 with the O.P-3 who granted receipt without delivery date and time. The same is annexed herewith. In this circumstances, complainant requested to the O.Ps to change the Model what he bought of a new other model with readiness to pay extra amount after adjustment of purchased money of
Rs.10,990/- but the O.P did not pay any heed to it regarding the letter dated 20.11.2015 and on 31.12.2015 O.P-1 turned down the complainant’s proposal informing further that defective mobile set has been repaired and advised to contact the service centre. It has further stated that the complainant’s experience was not happy and trustworthy during the last three months since purchase. Inspite of that complainant expressed his readiness to accept the said mobile phone if provided to him with a certificate mentioning the phone is completely defect free within 7 days. But the O.P did not inform the same. So, it is a glaring example of harassment and mental trauma as well as financial loss. Hence, this complaint with a prayer to refund Rs.10,990/- , compensation of Rs.70,000/- and litigation cost Rs.10,000/- etc.
The O.P did not care to appear inspite of serving summon which is appearing from the track report against each of the O.Ps. Thus this highhandedness of the O.Ps compelled this bench to proceed in exparte ,that is why, this case is fixed for exprate hearing .
The Ld. Advocate of the complainant filed Brief Notes of Arguments and another petition treating the complaint as his evidence which was also accepted.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
From the series of annexure we find that complainant purchased a mobile phone from the O.P-2. It appears from the service job sheet that complainant reported no power ASP: no power, intermeted no power and the mobile phone is within the warranty period. Thus we find that it
has appeared from the letter dated 31.12.20915 issued by one Soma Bose of Customer Relations-East, Kolkata of Sony India who has informed the complainant that “Your set has been repaired adhering to the stringent standards of quality control and is ready for delivery. You may take back the same from the Service Centre at the earliest”. It has also stated to exchange your set or refund the purchase value.
Accordingly complainant sent a mail expressing his willingness to take the phone ,off course, one condition was imposed i.e. the O.P-1 has to give a certificate mentioning the phone is completely defect free and also mentioned; whatever the decision please convey through e-mail within 7 days. But unfortunately O.Ps did not send any mail within the stipulated period or thereafter, that is why, the O.Ps are reluctant to appear before this bench which is unfair trade practice and glaring example of deficiency of service. It should be observed that all the defects have been admitted by the O.P-1 through letter dated 31.12.2015 by mentioning that “Set has been repaired”. It may be mentioned here that complainant from time to time placed the phone after purchase for repair which appears from the annexure 2,3,4 which clearly justified that the mobile set was found defective and it was repaired within the warranty period. So, it was the duty of the O.P-1 to replace the same by a new one or refund the purchased value in order to satisfy the customer considering the representation of the O.P-1 in this field of business. But the O.P-1 did not think for a moment , only for one mobile set the representation is going to go-bye.
With that observation we find that complainant has been able to prove deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the O.P-1 as well as O.P-2 since O.P-2 after selling the mobile phone did not take any initiative to exchange or refund the money to the complainant and no initiation was taken by the O.P-2. But we find that O.P-3 being the authorized Service Centre has no deficiency of service.
Hence,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed against the O.P-3.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 jointly and/or severally directed to refund the entire consideration money of Rs.10,990/- ,which is the price of the mobile in terms of invoice dated 18.9.2015 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order together with interest @9% p.a on and from the date of purchase i.e. 18.9.2015 to till its realization.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order , failing which further interest will carry @10% p.a on the entire awarded amount from the date of default till its realization.
If the O.P nos. 1 and 2 failed to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in exparte against the O.P nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed against the O.P-3.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 jointly and/or severally directed to refund the entire consideration money of Rs.10,990/- ,which is the price of the mobile in terms of invoice dated 18.9.2015 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order together with interest @9% p.a on and from the date of purchase i.e. 18.9.2015 to till its realization.
The O.P nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order , failing which further interest will carry @10% p.a on the entire awarded amount from the date of default till its realization.
If the O.P nos. 1 and 2 failed to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.
Member Member President
