Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/113

Sri Manash Chanda. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GIONEE Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. & 1 another - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 113 of 2014

Sri Manash Chanda,
Vidyasagar Road,
Jogendra Nagar, 
Agartala,  
West Tripura.            .................Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

1. GIONEE,
SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.
F-2, Block No- B-1, Ground Floor, 
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044,

2. Gionee Authorized Service Centre,
Surajit's Mobile Care,
1st and 2nd Floor Melarmath,
H.G.B. Road, Agartala, 
West Tripura.             ….........Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant             :  Complainant in person.
                           
For the Opposite parties        :  None appeared.                  

 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : - 05.05.15

 

J U D G M E N T

               This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Manash Chanda of Jogendranagar, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Gionee Syntech Pvt. Ltd. & another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
    
2.        The case of the complainant as gathered from the record is that  he purchased a Gionee E 6 Mobile set wroth Rs.23,500/- on 14th November, 2013 from M/S Sarala Electronics, Melarmath, Agartala with warranty period of one year. In the first part of July, 2014, the mobile set started giving troubles. Its auto display system went blank. So, he placed the mobile set with the authorized service centre, namely Gionee Service Centre, Surajit's Mobile Care (O.P. No.2) for rectification of defect. The O.P. No.2 advised to change touch and display system of the mobile set, for which they claimed Rs.7333/- in advance. After repeated persuasions, on 3rd September, 2014 the O.P. No.2 replaced the old mobile set by a new one. But from the very first day  he was facing problem with the replaced mobile set. Then he again placed it with the service centre (O.P. No.2) to remove the defect. After waiting for a long time, ultimately he received the repaired set on 16th October, 2014. Upon receipt of the same it was noticed that the internet system of the mobile set was not working. So, he again placed it with the service centre on 29th October, 2014. But he has not received the same as yet. It is alleged that the O.P. No. 1 adopted unfair trade practice by selling a defective mobile set. According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.Ps constitutes negligence and deficiency in service and hence he is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.

3.        Though notice to O.P. No.1 Gionee, Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. was sent on 09.01.15 by speed post yet he did not appear before this Forum to contest the case.
        The O.P. No.2 refused to receive the notice tendered to him. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against both the O.Ps.
            FINDINGS:
4.        The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
        (i) Whether the O.P. No.1 adopted unfair trade practice by selling a defective mobile set to the complainant;
        (ii) Whether the conduct of the O.Ps attracts negligence and deficiency in service. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.Ps.
        
5.        We have heard argument advanced by the complainant in person. Also perused the complaint, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant very meticulously.

6.        From the documents on record it is very much clear that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 14.011.13 for Rs.23,500/- from a local dealer, namely M/S Sarala Electronics, Melarmath, Agartala. Within the period of warranty it started giving troubles. Its auto display and sound system did not work properly. The complainant placed the mobile set with the service centre (O.P. No.2) on several occasions which is evident from the work orders dated 16.09.14, 29.10.14 and 03.11.14 issued by the O.P. No.2. It also appears that the internet of the mobile set was also not functioning properly. As it appears, as per suggestion of the O.P. No.2 the touch display system of the mobile set was replaced by a new one, for which the complainant required  to pay Rs.7333/- being the price of the equipment. In spite of that the mobile set did not free from defects when it put to use. The work orders issued by the service centre (O.P. No.2) on different dates would go to show that though the mobile set was repaired number of times within the period of warranty even thereafter it was not working properly. So, it can be said unhesitantly that the mobile set in question was suffering from major mechanical defect. This fact has received corroboration by the oral evidence of the complainant being supported by documentary evidence on record. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. Since there is no evidence in rebuttal, the evidence led by the complainant holds good.

7.        For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that failure to rectify the defect of the mobile set purchased by the complainant  within period of warranty certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In our opinion, the complainant has successfully made out a case that the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant, for which he is entitled to be duly compensated by the O.Ps jointly and severally. 

8.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile set by a new one or return Rs.30,833/-(Rupees Thirty thousand eight hundred thirty three)(Rs.23,500/- + Rs.7333/-) being the price of the mobile set and cost of equipment that was replaced towards repairing of the set respectively to the complainant jointly and severally within 6(six) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of presentation of the complaint before this Forum on 20.12.14 till the payment is made. The O.Ps are further directed to pay  compensation of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand) as costs of litigation.

9.                  A N N O U N C E D

Sd/-

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

Sd/-
SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.