DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC-  32 of 2017

 

Sri Samrat Kar Bhowmik,

S/O- Sri Manish Kar Bhowmik,

Dhaleswar-4, P.O. Dhaleshwar,

Agartala, West Tripura. .......…...Complainant.

 

          VERSUS

 

       1. Laxmi, Rajdhani Market Room No.1,

HGB Road, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

  District- Tripura West.

 

      2. LAVA International Ltd.,

A-56, Sector 64,

Noida- 201301,

Uttar Pradesh, India.

 

       3. Lava Care,

Authorized Service Centre for Lava Mobiles,

Surajit's Mobile Care, Ronaldsay Road,

West Side of District Court,

P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura. .........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,

 Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Goutam Dasgupta(Proprietor),

 

For the O.P. No. 2 : Smt. Shilpi Chowdhury,

 Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.3 : Mrs. Sujata Deb Gupta,

 Smt. Arpita Bhattacharjee,

 Smt. Paramita Roy,

 Sri Bikram Paul,

 Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   25.07.2017.

J U D G M E N T

 This case arises on the petition filed by one Samrat Kar Bhowmik U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one Lava Phone A 82  on 13.09.16 from Laxmi, Rajdhani Market, shop of O.P. No.1. Within the warranty period on 02.02.17 the display  of the phone became  hazy and it stopped working. So he went to the authorized service centre of Lava Care, O.P. No.3. After examining the phone the service centre claimed Rs.1456/-. As it was within the warranty the petitioner denied to pay it. So the damaged phone was returned to the complainant along with the copy of work order. O.P. No.3 told that they sent the photocopy of the phone to the company Lava International at Noida and the company informed them that the phone was not working due to physical damage which is not covered by the warranty. According to the petitioner there was no physical damage but only to avoid the responsibility false plea is taken. Petitioner therefore claimed compensation and repair without any charge. 

 

2. O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 appeared. O.P. No.1 admitted the sale of the mobile phone. O.P. No.3 admitted the demand of Rs.1465/- as the terms of warranty did not cover the physical damage. The product shall be counted as out of warranty if the product is subject to abnormal use, improper storage, exposure.' O.P. No.2 did not file any W.S. 

 

3. So, on the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;

(I) Whether the damage of the phone was covered by the warranty or not?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get repair  service free of cost and also compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the cash memo, warranty of the mobile phone, work order, notice, speed post receipts, refusal notice, tracking report, reply, demand draft.

 

5. Petitioner also submitted statement on affidavit of complainant Sri Samrat Kar Bhowmik. 

 

6. O.P. No.3 on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Surajit Dey and one Narayan Das. 

 

7. On the basis of  evidence before us we shall now determine the above points.

 

Findings and decision;

8. The fact of purchase of the mobile phone for Rs.4170/- is admitted and established  by the cash memo produced. It is also admitted that Lava Product is covered by warranty  for one year. For battery and charger 6 months. 

 

9. We have gone through the service report. There it is written that problem here is abnormal use or condition, liquid damage or physical damage. Surajit Dey, O.P.W. stated that in case of abnormal use, improper storage is not covered by warranty. He stated that authorized person sent one picture of the mobile to the technical team of the company and the technical team replied that the damage would not cover under warranty condition.

 

10. Narayan Das, O.P.W. 2 stated that expert person regarding service of the mobile frequently visit there service centre for giving training of repairing of the Lava phones. He detected that the mobile set was damaged due to spills and liquid. So he sent from Whatsapp the picture of the mobile set to the technical help desk of lava Mobile. It is surprising that on the basis of picture in the Whatsapp the technical team of the Lava mobile came to the conclusion that the mobile damaged due to spill and liquid. The mobile set was produced before us. The sign of physical damage  in naked eye can not be detected. The opinion was taken by the company official without  physical examination of the mobile set. This is improper and unfair. It appears that only to avoid their responsibility this false plea is taken by the O.P. No. 2 and 3. 

 

11. O.P. No.1, seller had no fault at all. But due to the fault of this O.P. No.2 and 3 petitioner could not get proper service as mobile set was not repaired. This is deficiency of service of both the O.P. No.2 and 3. We consider that charging Rs.1465/- for repairing of the mobile by service centre within warranty period was unfair. The mobile set  is to be repaired within the warranty period free of cost because physical damage could not be proved by convincing evidence. There is no convincing evidence to support or prove that the mobile set was kept in such a position inviting the liquid damage. We therefore, direct the service centre, O.P. No.2 to repair the mobile set free of cost without charging Rs.1465/-. We direct the Lava Care and Lava International to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.  Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. We direct the O.P. No.2 to pay this amount of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand) to the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. O.P. No.3 is directed to repair the mobile free of cost. 

 

 

Announced.