West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/392/2015

1. Khokan Biswas. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _392_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : _31.8 .2015__                          DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30/03/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :    Khokan Biswas, Gangajoara, P.O Nayabad, P.S. Sonarpur, Dist.S-24PGs.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1.    Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, MOhanCo-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.

                                               2.     Sales Emporium (Garia), 3652, Garia Main Road, Kolkata-700 084.

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

This an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on a ground that he has purchased a Laptop in the month of March, 2015 from the O.P-2 ,which is a Sony make. It appears that from the first part of July 2015 the said Laptop was giving trouble and facing so many defects ,for which, he went to Sony’s authorized service centre and they kept the Laptop in their custody and on the very next date one employee Mr. Buddhadeb Das informed that Rs.5000/- is required for repairing of the Laptop as the Laptop was repaired earlier. It has further stated that warranty period is not ended but the said Service Centre showed him previous service job of the same model thereby complainant came to know that he was cheated. Accordingly he informed the matter to the O.P-1 but they refused to take the responsibility of this misdeed and informed the Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. mailed him offering the warranty period increased from 1 year to 13 months from the date of purchase. Accordingly he lost his faith and believe upon the Sony India Ltd. and after purchasing he has been harassed and cheated. Hence, this case demanding compensation for all these harassment Rs.2 lacs.

Initially the O.Ps appeared but did not contest the case by filing vakalatnama and written version, for which case proceeded in exparte against them.

It is to be mentioned here that in the second half when exparte hearing will be taken up at that time ld. Advocate of the O.Ps appear but we cannot review our own order in view of the reported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 8155/01 ,wherein the Hon’ble Justice has observed that “ Further the effect of the amendment to the Act in 2003 whereby Section 22A was introduced and has the effect of conferment of power of restoration on the National Commission but not to the State Commission or the District Forum”.

So the District Forum has no power to review at all. Apart from that Hon’ble State Commission in M.A. no.993/2015 arising out of C.C.no. 82 of 20014 has observed that “Hon’ble State Commission sitting in bench no.1 has referred the decision reported in 2011(9) SCC 541 (Rajiv Hitendra… Vs. Aakash Karacheka and Anr. and in the said decision it has been held that Hon’ble State Commission has no power to review or recall its own order”.

In this circumstances when there is settled Law, the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps  , after fixing a case for hearing in exparte, cannot be taken into consideration as it cannot be reviewed by this Bench. Accordingly, we have heard the Ld. Advocate of the complainant in exparte.

Point for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            From the record we find that said Laptop was purchased previously on 9.10.2014 but it was requested to repair on 2.10.2014. It is the document which is available by the complainant from the Authorized Service Centre. But this Laptop was purchased on 4.3.2015. From the previous job sheet it appears that Serial no. is 4902  and this Laptop is also of Serial no.4902 and it appears that Serial numbers are identical. So, if the said Laptop was purchased on 9.10.2014 or 10.9.2014 how the said and identical Laptop was again sold to this complainant on 4.3.2015. So this is no doubt a glaring example of unfair trade practice.

            Accordingly on meticulous scrutiny from the documents we find that old Lapto0p was sold to this complainant which was previously repaired at Sony Service Centre. It is true that complainant failed to make party  to the Service Centre but that does not mean when document itself speaks that it was an old and repaired Laptop ,for which the Laptop was giving trouble. We are satisfied , when the O.P failed to contest the case by filing written version inspite of assurance and case was taken up for hearing in exparte and complainant in person files a petition stating that he will not file any evidence and his complaint is filed on affidavit and the same may be treated as his evidence, we have heard the argument and pass the judgment since complainant in person is suffering from mental agony after purchasing the Laptop.

 

 

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed in exparte against the O.Ps .

The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally  to refund Rs.28000/-  together with interest @15% p.a from 4.3.2015 till its realization and to pay compensation of Rs.28000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.Ps jointly and/or severally tender the actual price of the Laptop along with cost and compensation within the stipulated period, then complainant has to return the old Laptop  as it where basis to the O.Ps after receipt of the amount in toto .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

                                                            Member                                                           President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement 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.Ps .

The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally  to refund Rs.28000/-  together with interest @15% p.a from 4.3.2015 till its realization and to pay compensation of Rs.28000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

It may be mentioned here that if the O.Ps jointly and/or severally tender the actual price of the Laptop along with cost and compensation within the stipulated period, then complainant has to return the old Laptop  as it where basis to the O.Ps after receipt of the amount in toto .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

                                                            Member                                                           President