DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-   57  of   2017

 

Sri Sourav Biswas,

S/O- Sri Ratan Biswas,

Jalilpur Dakshin Para,

Bamutia, West Tripura. …..….…...Complainant.

 

      VERSUS

 

     1. Illusion,

H.G.B. Road, Melarmath,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

     2. Sony Servicing Centre,

Melarmath, Near Daily Desher Kotha,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

     3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

Registered Office:

A-18, Mohan Co-operative 

Industrial Estate,

Mathura, New Delhi- 110044. ..........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 Swarup Pandit,

 Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

 Sri Nabajit Kumar Biswas,

 Advocates.  

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Ashim Das,

 Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.2 & 3 : Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,

 Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  06.09.2017.

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by Sourav Biswas U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one mobile phone from the shop of the O.P. Illusion on payment of Rs.23,500/-. But within the one year the set did not work properly. The warranty was given for one year. But within 11 months it started disturbing. So the petitioner went to the authorized dealer of Sony. But the O.P. No.1 claimed Rs.700/- first and then Rs.8000/- was charged for repairing of the phone. Then he went to the Sony Service Centre who told him that the product was sold out of India. So warranty clause not applicable. Both the O.P. No.1 and 2 refused to repair the mobile set. O.P. No.3 also did not take any step. Petitioner therefore prayed for redress and claimed compensation. 

 

2. O.P. No.1, Illusion appeared, filed Written Statement denying the claim. It is stated that petitioner purchased the imported Handset. It is not covered by warranty.  So petitioner is not entitled to get any redress. 

 

3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and the Sony Service Centre submitted Written statement. It is stated that hand set was purchased not from authorized dealer. It was not the Sony India marketed product and it is imported from outside. So warranty is not applicable. 

 

4. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination.

(I) Whether the petitioner's mobile phone was covered by warranty?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

Petitioner produced the invoice, copy of Email, cash memo and another cash memo  of purchasing 'Oppo Phone'.

 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the copy of board Resolution, copy of Warranty Terms.

 

7. Petitioner produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner himself.

 

8. O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Rupam Roy, proprietor of Illusion.

 

9. We have gone through all the evidence. We shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision:

 

10. O.P. Proprietor  of Illusion, Rupam Roy did not tell that at the time of sell he disclosed that warranty not available for the product purchased by the petitioner. Never he stated that it was foreign made product and Sony India will not be responsible for repairing. In the invoice he wrote the Sony. It support that he was not authorized dealer of the Sony Xperia C5. Sony India on the other hand in the written statement stated that Illusion, O.P. No.1 is not the authorized dealer of the Sony India. It is stated that product was manufactured out of India from Singapore. But that fact was not disclosed and it appears that the product model was of Sony Xperia C5. This is unfair trade practice of Illusion who projected himself as the authorized dealer of Sony and sold out the product as a product of Sony India. Warranty card was also supplied. But Sony India stated that the product did not cover the warranty. If Sony India did not market it in India then who marketed is not disclosed in the evidence. Petitioner was not aware about the details of the product. It is admitted that he went to the Sony Service Centre but the service was not provided. The plea taken is that the mobile set was manufactured outside India. If the product  is sold out in India then the Sony India is under obligation to establish service centre within the locality for the customer. The product might be manufactured outside but its repairing should be in India. Failure to arrange the repairing of the mobile set by service centre is deficiency of service. O.P. No.2 Sony Service Centre did not inform whether the mobile could be repaired. 

 

11. From scrutiny of the evidence it is clear that definitely the product covered the warranty though it was manufactured out side India but should be repairable in India. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation and redress. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. We therefore direct the O.P. Sony India & Sony Service Centre to arrange the repairing of the mobile phone. We also direct Illusion to pay Rs.10,000/- as it adopted unfair trade practice while selling the mobile phone. Payment is to be made within 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.