12....18.04.2022...
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is ordered that,
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP without cost.
That the OP is directed to pay Rs.1400/- @ 8% p.a. from 05.02.2020 within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- only for mental pain, agony and harassment caused to complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO._01_ OF 2021
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
13.01.2021 28.01.2021 18.04.2022
Present : President : Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Member : Jagdish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANTS : 1. Sri Chira Ranjan Dass,
Residing at Mahadevi Birla Niketan, Bagirhat, D.H.Road, P.O. & P.S. – Bishnupur, Dist.- South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 503.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. M/S. City Services (TV Repairing Centre),
Address is at 23/3 Sukanto Sarani, P.O. & P.S. –
Thakurpukur, Pin – 700 063
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Mr. Chira Ranjan Dass of Mahadevi Birla Niketan Bagirhat, Bishnupur with a direction to the OP to refund the amount paid by complainant to the tune of Rs.1700/- only and a compensation of Rs.85,000/- only for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for unfair trade practice.
M/S. City Services (TV Repairing Centre) is a Centre where television is repaired. The centre is situated at 23/3, Sukanta Sarani, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Pin – 700 063.
Complainant, by filing this case states that complainant bought a Samsung Colour Television on October, 2020. Complainant’s Samsung TV blacked out all on a sudden. Complainant called service engineer of Samsung Company. The engineers reported that the television is not repairable. Because ETH Transformer is fitted with the television. That ETH transformer was not working. And that transformer is no more available. Complainant searched for other service sectors. He thought if any agency would help him out.
Complainant states that M/S. City Services called complainant and informed that they had all the spare parts and they would be able to do the job. City Services sent their technician to his place. Complainant showed his television to the technicians. They informed complainant that the problem was in the Integrated Circuit (IC). Complainant was charged Rs.1700/- for that purpose in addition to the service charge of Rs.300/-. OP worked on the TV for a couple of days, and brought back the television almost to its earlier condition. But the job was not completed. The mechanic informed that little bit of fine tuning was necessary to bring the television to proper condition. The mechanic assured complainant that some work was still pending. He would do that on the next day. Because it was too late for him to go home.
He wanted Rs.1400/- out of aRs.1700/-. Complainant was also impressed by his work. The OP put his signature on a money receipt before receiving Rs.1400/-. Unfortunately, the OP never turned up again and he television became dead within two or three days. Complainant called the OP mechanic, Manas Mallick, but with no result. Complainant rang up repeatedly, but the OP did not respond. Complainant became totally helpless. He was duped by the O.P.
Hence, complainant prays for refunding the amount of Rs.1400/- and also prays for a compensation of Rs.8500/- only for mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice.
Notice was sent to the OP but the same was returned due to insufficient address. Notice was againsent to the address of the OP, but the same is returned with endorsement. No such person in this address. On 22.12.2021 complainant is present and files postal receipt showing service of notice upon the Op on 17.11.2021. None appears on behalf of the OP. The case proceeded exparte against the OP. Argument was heard on 23.03.2022 and it proceeded for giving judgement.
Points of Consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
03.Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decisions with Reasons
- Complainant has a Samsung Television. It went off all on a sudden in October, 2020. Complainant could not imagine that the television would go off abruptly. Service engineers of Samsung Company could not fix it due to non-availability of a certain spare part. Complainant fell in problem His television was dead. Somehow complainant came to know of a TV repairing Centre. The Centre is located at 23/3 Sukanta Sarani, Kolkata-700 063. The OP contacted with complainant and told that they would be able to do the job. OP also informed that they had all the spare parts. The Centre deputed one Manas Mullick whose phone number is 7431918460 to do the job of repairing. He worked on the television for two to three days and brought the television to a condition when it appeared that the television would be OK and it would be out of defects, and free from all the complexities. He told that only few adjustments were required to be done. Complainant cherished a hope of seeing a problem-free television. The OP mechanic, then demanded Rs.1400/- as interim payment against full charge of Rs.1700/-Complainant was also assured by the OP that he would do the remaining job on the next day. Complainant paid Rs.1400/- and a money receipt was issued by the O.P. As complainant paid for the job. Complainant is a consumer. So, the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.
- OP is a television repairing centres, the centre is represented by mechanic Manas Mullick. Complainant contacted with the OP M/S. City Services.. They assured complainant of a problem free service. Complainant believed in the words of the O.P. Earlier the personnel of Samsung television company could not satisfy him. Complainant thought that his problem would be solved by taking help of M/S. City Services. OP deputed his representative Manas Mullick who went to complainant’s house and started repairing the television. He informed complainant that the problem would be solved by him. The mechanic started the work. He worked for two to three days. Complainant was also hopeful. The mechanic informed that the work was almost over, but some fine adjustments are required to be done. Complainant believed. But noting of the sort has happened. He demanded Rs.1400/- out of Rs.1700/-. Complainant paid the money and he left the job after getting payment of Rs.1400/-. Neither he came back, nor he reported to complainant when he would come to do the pending work. The mechanic went away with Rs.1400/- only and never returned to complete the incomplete work. It is the duty of the OP to complete the work, because he was paid in advance for the job and the television went off completely. OP took money, but did not perform his job. It is nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complainant called the Op for several times. He also sent messages to the OP. But the OP M/S City Services did not care to answer complainant’s calls and messages. In spite of giving money, complainant’s television was not working. OP’s job is not satisfactory. OP’s service is a clear example of deficiency in service. So the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.
- OP is reluctant in rendering proper service. Complainant’s job is left half-way. His television was not repaired. He went to the TV repairing centre. There is no such hoarding as City Service. But in the name of City Service, bills and challans were printed and bills was issued to complainant. OP has an intention to dupe complainant and to harass complainant. Complainant paid money to the representative of the OP on good faith. Complainant was totally ignorant of the malafide intention of the OP. As complainant paid money, he tried to contact with the OP and the representative of the OP. But the OP never came back. Complainant was harassed. He spent money, but in return, he got nothing. Hence, he is entitled to relief. So, the third point is also settled in favour of complainant.
In the result, complaint succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP, without cost.
That the OP is directed to pay Rs.1400/- @ 8% p.a. from 05.02.2020 within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- only for mental pain, agony and harassment caused to complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website www.confonet.in.
