Tripura

StateCommission

A/21/2018

Sri. Prasenjit Debnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

G. S. Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Saha, Mr. S. Banik, Mr. S. Datta

28 Jun 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.21.2018

 

 

1. Sri Prasenjit Debnath,

S/o Sri Narayan Debnath,
West Taranagar, P.O. Mohanpur,

District - West Tripura.

 

… … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

Vs

 

1. G.S. Electronics,

161, H.G.B. Road,

Opposite Tripura Commission for Women (Old),

Melarmath, Agartala-799001, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                          Mr. Sagar Banik, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                      Mr. Bimal Banik, the husband of

                                                                         the proprietor of G.S. Electronics.

 

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     28.06.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in Execution Case No.EA/42 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“24.04.18- Learned advocate for D.H. is present. J.D. appeared and deposited the amount Rs.7,590/-. Case is disposed. Arrange payment of amount to petitioner. To 15.05.2018 for payment.”  

2. On 20.06.2018, the delay of 2 days was condoned by this Commission after hearing the parties and the appeal was admitted to be heard. Today, the matter is listed for hearing.
3. Heard Mr. Sagar Banik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Bimal Banik the husband of the proprietor of G.S. Electronics appearing on behalf of the J.D No.1, the respondent herein.    
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellant-complainant filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum against the J.D. No.1, G.S. Electronics, the respondent herein, and S.B. Electronics, authorized Service Centre, the J.D. No.2 and in the said complaint it was alleged that the appellant-complainant purchased one mobile phone from the J.D. No.1 which was subsequently found defective within the period of warranty. J.D. No.2 the Service Centre placed estimated repairing cost amounting to Rs.4,487/- within the warranty period. Therefore, the appellant-complainant could not repair it and informed the matter to the Judgment Debtor who did not take care of it. Thus appellant-complainant filed the complaint case for replacing the said mobile phone and compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-.

5. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint petition directing the J.D. No.1, G.S. Electronics to deliver a new mobile set to the complainant of same category or pay Rs.7,590/- and also pay Rs.5,000/-, in total Rs.12,590/- as compensation. The J.D. No.2, S.B. Electronics, Service Centre was directed to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation to the appellant-complainant within a period of one month, if not paid, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.
6. As the Judgment Debtor did not comply with the judgment of the learned District Forum dated 17.04.2017 in Case No.C.C.19 of 2017, the appellant-complainant preferred an Execution Case being No.EA/42 of 2017. The learned District Forum vide order dated 24.04.2018 disposed of the Execution Case with the order as stated (supra). Hence the appeal.
7. Mr. Banik, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant submits that though the learned District Forum directed the opposite party no.1, G.S. Electronics, i.e. J.D. No.1 to deliver a new mobile set of same category or pay Rs.7,590/- and Rs.5,000/-, in total Rs.12,590/- as compensation to the appellant-complainant, but the Execution Case was disposed of after deposit of Rs.7,590/- instead of Rs.12,590/- which itself is unfair and illegal.
8. On the other hand, Sri Bimal Banik, the husband of the proprietor of J.D. No.1 while supporting the impugned order would contend that the J.D. No.1 has already deposited Rs.7,590/- as directed by the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum after satisfaction disposed of the case.
9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the impugned order we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum failed to consider its own judgment in the Execution Case when the learned District Forum itself directed the J.D. No.1 to deliver a new mobile set to the petitioner of same category or pay Rs.7,590/- and Rs.5,000/-, total Rs.12,590/- as compensation. It is not clear to us on what basis the learned District Forum disposed of the case after deposit of only Rs.7,590/-. As per the award, the appellant-complainant is entitled to get Rs. Rs.12,590/- from the J.D. No.1 in absence of delivery of a new mobile set of same category. Thus it is necessary to interfered with the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is interfered with. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Forum to decide the Execution Case in terms of the judgment passed by it on 17.04.2017 in Case No.C.C.19 of 2017 so far the Judgment Debtor No.1, G.S. Electronics is concerned. The J.D. No.2, S.B. Electronics has already complied with judgment passed by the learned District Forum.    

In the result, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura