DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 323 of 2022.

 

Sri Sudipta Choudhury,

S/O. Sri Hiralal Choudhury,

R/O. Amtali, Asharam Para,

P.O.-Amtali, P.S.-Amtali, Pin-799130,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….............................................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

1. PROPRITOR – PARTHA ROY,

ARJYA MOBILE(PAUL P.C.O.)

Melarmath H.G. B. Road, Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura............................................................................................................ Opposite Party.

 

 

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

             For the Complainant : In-person.

 

For the O.P.             : None appeared – Ex-parte. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 30 /11/2022.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Sudipta Choudhury, filed this instant case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the present o.p., propritor, Partha Roy, ARJYA MOBILE for deficiency of service committed by the O.P. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant  

purchased one Redmi 9 mobile for a consideration of Rs. 9,500 on 30/06/2021 from Arjya Mobile (Paul PCO) here in referred O.P. Warranty of the said mobile was 1 year. After 4 months of purchase of the mobile set on 30/10/2021 there are some problem in the mobile set and the mobile was not working properly and for that the Complainant went to the service centre. The person of the service centre returned back the mobile set to the Complainant after servicing. Again on 06/11/2021 the Complainant was facing some complications in the mobile set and again he went to the service centre and after a while the person of service centre returned back the mobile set to the Complainant by saying that mobile is ok. Again on 18/12/2021 the Complainant was facing trouble with the mobile set again he went to the service centre and he approached to the mobile shop and told them to replace the mobile set but they again restored the set in place of replacement. Later on Complainant again and again facing complications with the mobile set and than also he make conversation with the service centre and they made the servicing of the mobile set. It is needed to mention here that on 1st (3) three occasions the service centre made entry and registered of the complaint on 30/10/2021, 06/11/2021 & 18/12/2021 but later on the service centre although render  service on the mobile for 5 to 6 occasions without registering the complaint but presently the mobile is not working. 

The Complainant filed the present complaint claiming compensation for an amount of Rs.9,500/- along with Compensation. Hence, the case.

2.          After admission of the complaint notice was issued upon the O.P. but the O.P.  inspite of  receiving notice did not turn up and the case was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 16/08/2022. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

3. Complainant filed his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced few documents comprising 07 sheets. The documents are namely Tax invoice of the mobile set, complaint registered by the 

Complainant on 30/10/2021, complaint registered by the Complainant on 03/11/2021, complaint registered by the Complainant on 13/12/2021, Identity Card of the Complainant & Aadhar Card of the Complainant etc. 

     4.     POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points cropped up for determination:

      (I).  Whether there has been deficiency in service committed and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. against the Complainant ?

(II). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for?

  (III).Up to what extent Complainant is entitled to get relief against his prayer for compensation as sought for?

5. DECISION AND REASON FOR DECISION:-

  Complainant produced the statement of his affidavit in chief, and he repeated the same what he has stated in his complainant petition and stated that he purchased one mobile set from present O.P. ARJYA MOBILE for an amount of Rs. 9,500 and after lapse of 4 months the mobile set was not working properly and for that he talked to the O.P. and the O.P. also on several occasions attempted to repair the said mobile but ultimately all the attempt was in vein. The complainant also went and speak to the O.P. for replacement of the mobile as it was not working but the O.P. didn't replace the mobile and for that the complainant filed the present case.   

    We have gone through the complaint petition, documents filed by the Complainant as well as evidence and argument submitted by the Complainant.

         Hence, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that there was a deficiency of service and unfair trade practices adopted by the O.P. against the Complainant as inspite of repeated approach by the complaint O.P. did n"t replace the mobile set although it was known to the O.P. that the mobile was not working properly and the complainant approached to the OP within the warranty period i.e. within 1 year.  Hence the issue no one goes in favor of the complainant and now, for that complainant is entitled to get relief as there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. The Complainant is entitled to get relief, now the question is that what would be quantum of compensation the Complainant will get.

         We have gone through the evidence, documents filed by the complainant and we find that complainant purchased the mobile for an amount of Rs. 9,500 so complainant is a consumer U/S 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 and the complication arosed and the complainant also went and talked to the O.P. to resolve the within 4 months from the date of purchase and after servicing also the issues was not settled and the mobile was not replaced by the O.P..Hence the complainant is entitled to get a compensation. 

6.              We therefore direct the OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,500/- as a cost of mobile, we also direct the O.P. to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation for Deficiency of Service and Unfair Trade Practice so committed by O.P. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 29,500/- (9,500/- for cost of mobile + 15,000/- for compensation + Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation). Payment is to be made within 2 ( two) months from the date of Judgment failing which it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

         Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost and Complainant is directed to send a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. by registered post for  information and compliance within 07 days after receiving the certified copy of the judgment. 

 

     Announced.

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.