BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 15 of 2016

            Sri Sanjay Sarda, ..………………………………………………….              Complainant.   

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         GIONEE SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY Pvt. Ltd.

            E-9. Block NO. B-1, Ground Floor,

            Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

            Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044.

            Email :

2.         The Manager,

            Mobile Techno Zone,

            Gionee Authorised ServiceCentre,

            N.N. Dutta Road, Opposite Gurudwara,

            Silchar – 788001, Cachar, Assam.                                                                 O.P No.2.

3.         Modern Times,

            Central Road,

            Silchar – 788001                                                                                             O.P. No.3.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                  President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                      Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared :-                 Rajib Das, Advocate for the complainant.

                                                Shamshuz Zaman Mazumder, Advocate for the O.P.No.2

                                                None for O.P.No. 1 and O.P.No. 3

                           Date of Evidence………………………..      08-12-2016, 11-01-2017

                         Date of written argument………………                   03-05-2017

                         Date of argument……………………….        06-07-2017

                         Date of judgment……………………….           04-08-2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                  Sri Bishnu Dednath,

1. The Complaint brought the instant case against Gionee Syntech  Technology Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, the service centre at Silchar and seller of mobile set at Silchar under Consumer Protection Act 1986 for replacement of his mobile set vide Model No. S 5.1, IMEI No. 862704028360927 or in alternative repair the defective set.

2. To get the relief above with compensation he brought the following facts:-He purchased the above mention mobile set on 25/02/2015 from Modern Times, Silchar vide his cash Memo No.17 dated 25/02/2015. The price of the mobile handset was Rs.12,000/-. But the said mobile handset started malfunctioning. Hence, went to Service Centre on 25/07/2015. The Service Centre repaired it vide Job sheet No. G -5466. After some days the mobile set persisted some other problem. The Complainant again went to Service Centre and got it repaired. Similarly 2(two) more occasion went to the Service Centre with problem of mobile set. The Service Centre could not give satisfactory service. Lastly, on 17/12/2015, the Complainant went to the Service Centre and deposited the handset, vide job sheet No.GC16200047229 and the said handset is still remain with the Service Centre without any information.

3. The Complainant time and again went to Service Centre and demand for replacement but O.P.No.2 ultimately replied that there was no problem in the said handset and as such mobile set cannot be replaced. Finding no alternative the Complainant served pleader’s notice on 14/03/2016 to the O.Ps with demand of repair the handset or in alternative replace the handset with same value of Rs.18,000/-. But the O.P did not make any respond. So, the instant complaint lodged with relief of award to direct the O.Ps to replace the mobile set or in default return price of the mobile set of Rs.18,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and compensation both for mental agony, pain and other relief as may be entitled as per law and equity.

4. The O.P.No. 1 and 3 did not contest the Case but O.P.No.2 i.e Service Centre submitted W/S and contested the case.

5. The O.P.No.2 in the W/S admitted the fact that the Complainant purchased the mobile set which was starting malfunctioning. It is also admitted that several time the Complainant visited the Service Centre with defective mobile set and the Service Centre issued job sheets on 25/07/2015, 17/12/2015, 11/02/2106 etc. The plea of the O.P. No.2 is that when the hand set was started malfunctioning due to software problem it was repaired and handed over to the Complainant but ultimately when found hardware problem, it was send to the R.V. Solution Pvt. Ltd, Guwahati and the said R.V. Solution repaired the hardware and then the O.P.No.2 handed over it to the Complainant but sometime after that the Complainant again came with the hand set and on finding hardware problem send it to the R.V. Solution Pvt. Ltd., for repairing. However, the Complainant demanded a replacement of new set. That is why matter was forwarded to higher authority. The higher authority send a branded new set to deliver to the Complainant but the Complainant is not receiving the new set. The New set is kept under its custody.

6. Anyhow, during hearing the Complainant adduced evidence and esxhibited document. The O.P No. 2 also examined its Proprietor Sri Surajit Singha and exhibited all Job sheet and delivery notes. After closing evidence, the Complainant and O.P.No.2 submitted written argument. Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P. Perused the written argument and evidence on record.

7. From the evidence on record it is opine that the Complainant handed over the defective hand set to the O.P.No.2 and demanded for repaired set or in alternation replacement of new set of same value of Rs. 18,000/-. The O.P.No.2 on its evidence admitted the fact of handing over defective set and further stated that brand new set of same model is now available with him for delivery to the Complainant but the Complainant is not coming to receive it. To substantiate his plea regarding informing the Complainant to receive the brand new handset is not proved by support of any documentary evidence. Anyhow the plea of the Complainant is to get a brand new hand set of same value. Accordingly, he exhibited the pleader’s notice vide Ext. 4. In the pleader notice it is mention that getting the replacement of handset with same value is only an alternative claim. The Complainant also claimed to get repaired set.

8. Why the repaired set is not receiving, the Complaint is not now a disputed issue because the O.P.No.2 is ready to deliver a Brand New handset. Hence, at this stage we have gone through the Complaint. In the complaint the Complainant never prayed to get replacement of new handset of same value of Rs.18,000/- rather prayed to direct the O.P to replace the mobile set or in default direct to pay cost of mobile set of Rs.18,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000/- +30,000/- = 80,000/-.

9. Now, the O.P is ready to give a brand new handset of same make. So, the prayer of the Complainant has been fulfilled by the O.P without waiting for award of this District Forum. Of course, the O.P.No.2 in its W/S and in the evidence very equivocally stated that the Complainant is not entitle compensation because there is no disservice/deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.

10. Anyhow, on consulting all material evidence on record and reply of the O.P.No.2, we are of opinion that the Complainant will not be prejudiced if received the brand new handset of same make with adequate compensation. The Complainant is entitled compensation because he not only suffered with mental agony but also suffered due to malfunctioning of the handset for long period. As such in our considered view Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only of together for mental agony, pain and suffering from other factors including cost of the proceeding is justified amount of compensation.

11. Therefore, it is directed to the O.P.No.2 to handover brand new workable condition of mobile handset with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the Complainant within 45 days from today. O.Ps. i.e. O.P.no.1, 2 and 3 are all severally and jointly liable to replace the new handset and compensation aforesaid. If they failed to satisfy the award aforesaid within the stipulated period, they are not only liable to pay the compensation of above Rs.10,000/- but also liable to pay price of handset of Rs.18,000/- in place of brand new handset with interest at rate of 10% per annum.

12. With the above order, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this Judgment to the parties.

Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 4^th day of August, 2017.