West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/133/2017

Sri Arup Varma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jain's an exclusive Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

Sudipta Chatterjee

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

    Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

and 

Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

Complaint Case No.133/2017

Sri Arup Varma, S/o-late Maharaj Bihari Varma, residing at

Muktangan near Shakti Bhaban,  P.O.-Inda,

P.S.-Kharagpur (T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                             ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Jain’s an exclusive Mobile Shoper  represented by Akash Jain

at 82, Gole Bazar,  P.O. & P.S.-Kharagpur , Dist- Paschim Medinipur;

2. The Chairperson/Managing Director of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohon Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                            .....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Sudipta Chatterjee , Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Surajit Dutta and Mr. Gobinda Prasad Jana, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                            Date of filling:-  21/08/2017

          Decided on : -    13/04/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha , Member –In short the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile phone of Sony Company on 21/09/2016 from O.P. no.1, worth Rs.27,900/-. After some days from the date of purchased the said mobile phone facing some problems and complainant intimated O.P. no.1 on 09/02/2017 and O.P. no.1 received the mobile for repairing and after repaired returned to the complainant on 20/02/2017. But after few days said mobile started audio problem and O.P. no.1 sent it to the  service centre of the  company on 29/02/2017 and after servicing returned back the

                                                                                                                                                      Contd……………P/2

                                                              

                                                                                                       ( 2 )

same on 17/03/2017 changing the cabinet of the  mobile. The mobile in question started same problems again and O.P. sent it on 04/05/2017 to its service centre and on 23/05/2017 and thereafter returned back it on 13/06/2017 to the complainant.  Though company’s Regional Customer relation centre informed by letter dated 19/05/2017 to the complainant that they will replace the mobile in question but they did not act it. For which complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal with the prayer of his complaint.

O.P.no.1 contested the case by filing written statement stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, this O.P. admitted the fact for purchasing the disputed mobile and received the  defective mobile and returned back on various dates mentioned in the complainant, O.P. no.1 is the seller only and O.P. no.2 is the manufacturer and video plaza is its service centre and manufacturer is liable for repair or replace the mobile, this O.P. has no deficiency of service and this O.P. pray for rejection the complaint petition.

O.P. no.2 contested the case by filing written statement stating inter alia, that complainant purchased said mobile in question. After purchasing the mobile complainant appeared company’s service center for problem of microphone and then said mobile set produced in broken condition, company provides one year warranty on its products from the date of purchased. Complainant never visited any service centre of O.P. no.2 raising any sort of claims. This O.P. has not deficiency of service and this O.P.  Pray for dismissal of the case.                                                                                                      

                             Decision with Reasons :

We carefully perused the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents. We find that complainant purchased one mobile set of Sony Company from O.P. no.1 worth Rs. 27,900/- and after purchasing the said mobile facing trouble and complaint met with O.P. no.1 who repaired the mobile through servicing centre of company but after that said mobile was starting troubles on many times and complainant also approached O.P. no. 1 who repaired many times through company’s service centre but mobile in question is not in order properly. Complainant intimated the matter to the O. P. no.2 who is the manufacturing unit but they also did not take proper care.

In support of his case complainant adduced evidence and tendered himself as PW-1 and he also cross-examined by the O.Ps.  In cross examination PW-1 stated that company’s servicing centre verbally told that the mobile in question was manufacturing defect but they did not give me any written document.  O.P. no.2 also adduced evidence on their behalf as OPW-1 and submitted one document i.e. only authorization letter and said witness in his cross-examination stated that he has not any employee of O.P. no.2 and he had no knowledge in respect of letters sending by the complainant. From the written

                                                                                                                                                    Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                               ( 3 )

statement of O.P. no.1 we find that he is a dealer and seller of the company and admits that O.P. no.2 is liable to repair or replacement of defect mobile set within warranty period. In the written statement, O.P. no.1 corroborated the statements in respect of defect mobile set of  complainant. O.P. no.2 is a manufacturing unit of the mobile in question.

From the fact of the case and documents it is clear that mobile in question was creating problems after few days from the date of purchase and in so many times complainant approached to O.P. no.1 with the defect mobile set for repair and O.P. no.1 sent the mobile set to the company’s servicing centre who repaired it,  but the said mobile creating problems on frequent times to smoothly use but the servicing centre of O.P. no.2 did not take proper care or mechanically tested by their service engineer to remove the  problems within warranty period.

O.P. no.2 did not adduce any cogent evidence that the mobile in question was manufacturing defect.

In view of the discussions here in above we find that the mobile set was inherent defect which could not remove by the servicing centre of the O.P. no.2 when so many  times mobile set submitted to the repairing/servicing centre of the manufacturer but they verbally stated to the complainant that it  is the manufacturing defect. In such circumstances, we think that complainant proved his case and O.P. no.2 was negligent and deficient in service to the complainant as such complainant is entitled to get an order as per prayer of his complainant.   

     Thus the complaint case succeeds.                                  

                                     Hence, it is,

                                                       Ordered 

                                                        that complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps.

O.P. no.2 is directed to refund Rs.27,900/- (cost of the mobile), to pay Rs.5,000/- to the  complainant as compensation for harassment and mental pain etc. within one month from the date of the order.

Complainant is also directed to return back the mobile in question (if it is within the custody of the complainant) to the O.P. no.2 in the event of receipt the awarded amount.

Failure to comply the order O.P. no.2 is liable to pay Rs.2,000/-  per month as penal cost to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization.                                    

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                         Sd/-P.K. Singha                                Sd/- S. Sarkar                          Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                          Member                                     President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur