Tripura

StateCommission

A/26/2018

Mr. Sushanta Chandra Deb - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.R Service - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Samar Das

06 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.26.2018

 

 

1. Sri Sushanta Chandra Deb,

S/o Late Jagadish Chandra Deb,

Resident of Near Vivekananda Vidyamandir,

Dhaleswar, P.O. Dhaleswar,

District – West Tripura, Pin: 799007.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. G.R. Service,

16, Office Lane, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

 

2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Cin No. U74899DL1994PTC062781,

A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110 044 (India).

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                       Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondents:                                  Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 06.10.2018.

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 130 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties) to replace the mobile set by a defectless set immediately and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards harassment i.e. deficiency of service of the opposite parties for the delay of three months and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The defectless set is to be delivered to the petitioner along with the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,000/-. The opposite parties are to follow the aforesaid directions within a period of two months.

2. Heard Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant). None appears for the respondents though on the earlier occasion, Mr. Sushanta Sekhar Datta, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents. Thus the matter is taken up ex parte against the opposite parties.
3. Brief facts of the case needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Sushanta Chandra Deb, filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that he purchased one mobile handset model ‘Sony Xperia XA Ultra Dual (Graphite Black IMEI No.356060075059521)’ on 24.05.2017 (received on 31.05.2017) manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2) through e-commerce website of Amazon for which he paid an amount of Rs.20,890/-, but the mobile set was not giving satisfactory service. Thus he went to the service centre (opposite party no.1) and asked for replacement of the mobile handset. The opposite party no.1 arranged for delivery of one new mobile set, but according to the complainant, the said mobile set was not a new one. Complainant then made a complaint to Sony India Pvt. Ltd. customer care. Complainant insisted for replacement or refund of the money, but the service centre did not do so. It was reported by the service centre that there was one camera problem. Service centre assured to provide a new handset, but the complainant was not ready to take it. He claimed for refund as it was not new one and also compensation of Rs.79,000/-.

4. Opposite party, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. appeared and submitted its reply by way of affidavit wherein it had denied the claim of the complainant. In the reply it is stated that the handset was replaced free of cost by the service centre. Again it was stated that set was freezing, but service centre found that set was O.K. Service centre always resolved the problem as raised by the petitioner. Even the service centre replaced the mobile handset by another new one, but the petitioner insisted for refund of the amount without any sufficient cause. Thus the claim is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties in their respective pleadings, following points were framed by the learned District Forum to decide the case:-

1. Whether the purchased set was defective and petitioner was suffered?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the amount and entitled to get the amount?

6. Complainant in support of his case produced the cash memo of the mobile set and warranty card, job sheet, letter to G.R. Service, e-mail to Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party no.2). Complainant also submitted his affidavit-in-chief and examined him for cross-examination.
7. Opposite party, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. produced the certified copy of Resolution, Important information, warranty terms, copy of e-mail.
8. The learned District Forum considering the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum, the complainant has impugned the same.
10. Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the opposite parties are liable to refund the value of mobile phone to the appellant-complainant and also to pay compensation for harassment and litigation cost as ordered by the learned District Forum. In support of his contention, he submitted that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned judgment confined himself only to the prayer for refund of purchase price of the mobile handset and the compensation, but did not consider the prayer for replacement of the mobile handset.
11. As none appears for the opposite parties we have gone through the reply of the opposite parties by way of affidavit submitted before the learned District Forum. We have also gone through the impugned judgment from which it appears that the learned District Forum considered the evidence on record particularly, the service job sheet provided by the service centre and also the terms of warranty wherein it is stated that subject to the condition, this limited warranty will last for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the product. It is also stated that as per terms of the warranty, the same is to be replaced or refunded at the option of the manufacturer and in the instant case, the opposite party no.2, the manufacturer, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through opposite party no.1 service centre replaced the mobile handset of the complainant by way of a new one after two months from the date of receipt of the same, but the complainant refused to take it on the ground that the mobile handset was not a sealed one. It is also noted by the learned District Forum that the complainant is to take the replaced set as it was serviceable and defectless handset and it was O.K. as per the expert opinion. However, the learned District Forum considering the evidence on record particularly, the delay in handing over the mobile set passed the impugned judgment. The Consumer Court should be a friendly one to the consumer. According to us, the complaint petition itself is a defective one as Amazon was not made party from which the complainant purchased the mobile set manufactured by the opposite party no.2, but then also, the learned District Forum took a lenient view and allowed the complaint petition passing the impugned judgment whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum directed the opposite party to replace the mobile handset of the petitioner by a defectless set and also to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment i.e. deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation within two months from the date of order.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment. Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura