DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 130  of   2017

 

 

Sri Sushanta Chandra Deb,

S/O- Late Jagadish Chandra Deb,

Near Vivekananda Vidyamandir,

Dhaleswar, P.O- Dhaleswar- 799007. …........…...Complainant.

 

 

        -VERSUS-

 

 

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). ........... Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C o u n s e l

 

For the Complainant : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocates.  

For the O.P. : Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,

  Sri Subhash De,

  Advocates.   

 

 

JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:  07.06.2018.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Sushanta Chandra Deb U/S 12 of the C.P. Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one Mobile hand set manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. through website of Amazon. Complainant paid Rs.20,890/-. But the mobile set was not giving satisfactory service. So he went to the service centre and asked  for replacement. O.P. No.1 arranged for delivery of one new mobile set but actually it was not new. Complainant made complaint to Sony India Pvt. Ltd. customer care. Petitioner insisted for replacement or refund of the money but service centre failed. It was reported by the service centre that there was one camera problem. Service centre assured to provide a new hand set. But petitioner was not ready to take it. He claimed for refund as it was not new one he claimed for refund and also compensation Rs.79,000/-.

 

2. O.P. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. appeared filed written objection denying the claim. It is stated that the hand set was replaced free of cost by the service centre. Again it was said 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 offered another new one for replacement but petitioner insisted for refund of the amount without any sufficient cause. Therefore the claim is liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the purchased set was defective and petitioner was suffered?

(II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get the refund of the amount and entitled to get the amount?

 

4. Petitioner produced  the cash memo warranty card, job sheet, letter to G.R. Service, Email  to Sony India.

 

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness Sushanta Chandra Deb.

 

6. O.P. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. produced the certified copy of Resolution, Important information, warranty terms, copy of E-mail.

 

7. On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

8. Fact of purchase of mobile set is admitted and it is found that Rs.30,890/- is paid as price of the mobile set. We have gone through the Service Job Sheet and found that the hand set was within warranty period when it was produced. Condition of the set was written good. Customer complaint about the non- receipt of call, front camera problem, sim slot not working. Another service report dated 11.06.17 the service engineer found that working normally as per satisfaction. The technical report therefore, found normal in favour of the O.P.

 

9. We have gone through the Sony Warranty Card. There important information given. It is stated that subject to the condition of this limited warranty will last for a period of one year from the date of purchase of the product. Date of purchase was 24.05.17. So up to 25.05.18 warranty was valid. 

 

10. Petitioner stated in his statement on affidavit that he handed over the mobile phone of G.R. Service Centre for replacement. Firstly mobile phone was not delivered. He did not receive any satisfactory reply. On 08.08.17 he handed over the set  for replacement. One mobile was handed over to him. But it was not new one. He also went to the service centre on 9th September to receive a new one but O.P. handed him  one unsealed pack. So he refused to take it.

 

11. As per terms of warranty the set is to be replaced or refunded at the option of the manufacturer. Petitioner could not replace it. He could not insist for refund of the amount. O.P. could replace it when the O.P. insisted for replacement petitioner again claimed refund. But  the petitioner had to wait for a long time for replacement. He placed the mobile set on 17.6.17 but received another mobile set after 2 months on 08.08.17. On 26.08.17 he again claimed replacement of the hand set. After 15 days on 7th September 2017 service centre requested the petitioner to take the new set but it was unsealed. He refused to take it. This  is not proper plea of the petitioner. Petitioner is to take the replaced set as it was serviceable and defectless hand set. When it could not be repaired may be replaced at the option of the O.P. but it should be defect free. Petitioner could not understand that it was defect free. The expert opinion is that it was O.K. In such a case we can not support the claim of the petitioner. We therefore direct that the mobile set should be replaced by a defectless set and to be replaced immediately and petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- for harassment i.e., delay which is deficiency of service of the O.P. for the delay of 3 months petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- for litigation cost. The defectless set is to be delivered to the petitioner along with this Rs.13,000/-. We direct the O.P. to follow this direction within a period of 2 months.      

  

 

    Announced.

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA