Tripura

West Tripura

CC/77/2016

Dr. Subrata Kumar Pal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joy Guru Network & others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.Paul.

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  77   of  2016

Dr. Subrata Kumar Pal,
S/O- Late Dr. Ramesh Ch. Pal,
Old Kalibari Lane, 
Krishnanagar, P.O. Agartala,
West Tripura.            ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___
1. Joy Guru Network,
Airtel Urban Distributor,
Ramnagar Road. No.3,
Opp.Malancha,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Manager,
Airtel,
Mantribari Road,
RMS Point Chowmuhani,
Agartala, Tripura West.

3. Bharti Crescent,
1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phase- II,
New Delhi- 110 070. 

4. Bharti Hexacom, 
Modrina Mansion, 
1st Floor,
Laitumakrah Main Road,
Shillong- 793 003.

5. The Managing Director,
Beetel Teletech Ltd.,
First Floor, Plot No.16,
Udyog Vihar, Phase- IV,
Gurgaon- 122 015.            ...........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 Joydeep Paul,
                  Sri Rupak Chowdhury,
                  Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 3 & 4    : Sri Pranabashis Majumdar,
                  Advocate.
                     
                          
        
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 06.03.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by one Dr.Subrata Pal. Petitioner's case in short is that he had purchased 4G Hotspot Portable Wifi Router on 17.10.15 from Joyguru Net Work, Airtel Urban Distributor on payment of Rs.2,549/-. Sim Card of Airtel was taken. O.P. assured good service for one year. But on 9th April there was problem in operating the device. It was not showing the net work. Petitioner informed the matter to the O.P. No.1, Joyguru Net work several times. One service person, Ratan Debnath was sent who inspected the device and detected the errors. Then O.P. No.2 the Manager of Airtel replaced the previous device with a new one. After replacement also the problem remained the same. Another service man was sent for repairing. O.P. No.1 assured for replacement but till date it was not done. Claimant suffered mentally, financially as his professional work suffered. O.P. No.1 and 2 did not care for replacement or repairing. Advocate notice was sent but no action taken. Petitioner therefore claimed compensation Rs.1 lakh for mental agony, harassment and tension.

O.P. No.3 and 4 Bharati Crescent, Bharti Hexacom filed Written statement. It is stated that the matter of defect only brought to the notice of O.P. No.1 and 2. O.P. No.3 and 4 are not supposed to repair.

3.        O.P. No.1 and 2 & 5 filed no written statement.

4.        So on the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the following points.
        (I) Whether the device sold out by O.P. No.1 and 2 were defective one?
        (II) Whether petitioner suffered due to defective 4G Hotspot Portable Wifi Router device sold out by the O.P. No.1 and 2 and entitled to get compensation as claimed?

5.        Petitioner produced copy of cash memo, copy of warranty card, Advocate Notice. 
6.        Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of the complainant Subrata Kr. Pal.

O.P. on the other hand produced the statement of affidavit of Dhrubajyoti Saha.

8.        Both the witnesses are examined. Hearing argument on both sides we shall now decide the above points.

        Findings and decision:
9.        The fact of purchase of portable wifi router on 17.02.15  on payment of Rs.2,549/- is admitted. O.P. No.3 and 4 only activated the communication as per mandates of the telecommunication. The device is not manufactured by them or Airtel. From the evidence of petitioner also nothing found against the O.P. No.3 and 4. Petitioner actually purchased the device from O.P. No.1, Joyguru Network and thereafter went to the Manager, Airtel, Mantribari Road but not from Bharti Crescent & Bharati Hexacom. Whether they were the manufacturer or service provider not specifically described. From the petition it is clear that the service provider was Joyguru Network and the Manager, Airtel. The device was purchased from Joyguru Net work. So the Joyguru Net work may be considered as the agent of Airtel. But Joyguru did not appear or contest the case. Manager, Airtel also did not appear to contest the case. 
        
10.        We have gone through the warranty card. The warranty of the product extended for a period of 12 months from the date of activation. During the warranty period Huawei or authorized service centre will repair and replace. The repaired or replaced product shall be free from defect. All defective equipment shall be replaced by Huawei. 
        
11.        From the evidence of petitioner it is found that Sim Card was provided by O.P. No.2, Airtel. O.P. No.2 also replaced the device with new one. So the responsibility of Huawei was borne by the Manager, Airtel. But when the replaced Wifi device did not work then O.P. No.2 did not take the responsibility. As a result the petitioner did not get service from the defective wifi device. O.P. No.2, Manager, Airtel also misbehaved with him. As a result the complainant suffered financial loss as being a doctor by profession has been affected. He was mentally harassed. O.P. No.2 did not appear or give any written statement or evidence to discard testimony of the petitioner. Being the distributor Joyguru bears the responsibility for replacement of defective 4G wifi device. The subscriber suffered because of the deficiency of service of Joyguru Network or Manager, Airtel. O.P. No.3 and 4 activated  the device but they have no responsibility to repair or replace the defective one. So, the liability can not be fix on them in any way. 
        
12.        From the evidence on record it is clear that O.P. No.1 Joyguru Network being seller and the Manager, Airtel being service provider were under full responsibility to repair or replace the defective wifi device. The device was purchased on 17.10.15 and it was not working since 9th April, 2016 after 5 months. Warranty was for 12 months. So, within these 12 months both the O.P. No.1 and 2 were under obligation to repair or replace the device. It was not done. Therefore, due to the deficiency of service of the O.P. No.1 and 2 petitioner suffered financial loss and also mentally harassed. As a result Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for that and also entitled to get replacement of defectless device. Both the points are decided accordingly.
    
13.        In view of our above findings over these points we direct the O.P. No.1 and 2, Joyguru Network & Manager, Airtel to replace the wifi device by a new one and activate the connection without any further delay. For about 10 months petitioner is deprived from this facility and he suffered both mentally and financially. For this deficiency of service he is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand). He is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand), in total Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). Both the O.Ps No. 1 and 2 are to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) to the petitioner and also to replace the device immediately. The amount is to be paid and order is to be complied within 1(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.