Tripura

West Tripura

CC/19/2017

Sri Prasenjit Debnath. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

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

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC- 19 of  2017

    Sri Prasenjit Debnath,
    S/O- Sri Narayan Debnath,
    West Taranagar, P.O. Mohanpur,
    West Tripura.    .........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___
1. G.S. Electronics,
161, H.G.B. Road,
Opp. Tripura Commission for Women(Old),
Melarmath, Agartala,
West Tripura.

2. S.B. Electronics,
(Samsung Authorized Service Centre),
H.G.B. Road, Near Hotel Raj Palace,
Melarmath, Agartala,
West Tripura.    …..........Opposite party.

      __________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 complainants    : Sri Saikat Saha,
                  Sri Sagar Banik,
                  Advocates.

For the O.P. No.1        : None appeared. 
                     
For the O.P. No.2        : Sri Kajal Nandi,
                  Sri Abheek Saha,
                  Advocates.
                         

    JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 17.04.2017

J U D G M E N T

        Complainant is present. We have already heard argument of this case. Now proceeded to give decision.

        The case arises on the petition filed by Prasanta Debnath U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The case filed against the O.P. G.S. Electronics, Seller of the mobile and S.B. Electronics, authorized Service Centre. 

        Notice served upon them  but G.S. Electronics did not appear. So case proceeded against G.S. Electronics Exparte. 

        Advocate for S.B. Electronics appeared but thereafter taken no step and no written objection filed. Therefore, exparte evidence recorded. 

        The dispute in this case as disclosed from the petition is that the mobile phone purchased from the shop of O.P. was found defective. Warranty was for one year but within 2 months the mobile phone was not working. It was purchased on 04.07.16 and placed for repairing on 07.09.16 after 2 months. O.P. No.2 the Service Centre placed estimated repairing cost Rs.4,487/- within the warranty period. So, the petitioner could not repair it & informed the matter to the O.P. who did not take care of it. Therefore, petitioner filed this case for replacement of the mobile phone and compensation Rs.50,000/-.

        Petitioner produced the vouchers, Cash Memo, Quick Start up Guide terms and condition, copy of acknowledgment of service request, copy of estimate cost, copy of Advocate's Notice, Postal Receipt, AD Card. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of Prasenjit Debnath.

        We have gone through the evidence on record meticulously. It is found that the mobile phone was purchased from G.S. Electronics on payment of Rs.7,590/-. Proof of purchase is established by it. The product was purchased from authorized Samsung Sales, Dealer in India. Repairing was carried out in the authorized service centre O.P. No.2. We have gone through the Service Centre's repairing estimate given by O.P. No.2. As per estimate given cost of repairing was Rs.4487/-. Without assigning any reason it is stated that warranty not applicable and all repairs will be chargeable. Damaged area/ liquid damaged area not mentioned. The product was purchased just 2 months back on 04.07.16 and it was placed for repairing on 07.09.16. Warranty was for a period of one year as per the terms and conditions shown in the quick start guide produced before us. It is not mentioned why the repairing is chargeable within the warranty period. On 19.09.16 notice was sent to the S.B. Electronics and G.S. Electronics both the Seller and Service Centre. But they remained silent and did not take any step. 

        From careful scrutiny of original cash memo, quick start up guide, warranty card, detailed of estimated cost, advocate's notice and also statement on affidavit given by the petitioner it is established that both the seller and the repairing centre did not take care for repairing the mobile set within the warranty period. The seller was under obligation to inform the details to the manufacturer. Being the dealer it is the duty to inform the customer about the manufacturing defect and take step for changing the defective set. But it was not done. This is unfair trade. The authorized service centre was duty bound to repair the defective mobile phone within the warranty period but it was not done. So both the O.P. No.1, G.S. Electronics and O.P. No.2, S.B. Electronics have deficiency of service. Due to their deficiency of service petitioner being purchaser a consumer is entitled to get redress for such deficiency of service of O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. 
        
        In our considered view O.P. No.1, the seller of the defective mobile phone who did unfair trade should change the mobile set or pay the amount Rs.7,590/- after taking back the defective one. He is also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for such deficiency of service and harassment of the petitioner. O.P. No.2, authorized service centre who charged Rs.4,487/- within the warranty period without assigning any reason also has deficiency of service and for that he harassed the petitioner. The acknowledgment of the service request clearly reflected this fact. So, he is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.7,500/- to the petitioner. Thus, the case is decided.

        In view of our findings we direct the O.P. No.1, G.S. Electronics to deliver a new mobile set to the petitioner of same category or pay Rs.7,590/- and also pay Rs.5,000/- total Rs.12,590/- as compensation. We also direct the O.P. No.2, S.B. Electronics, Service Centre to pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation to the petitioner within a period of one month. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.      
                      
                    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.