Tripura

West Tripura

CC/36/2015

Sri Tapas Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Great Eastern Appliances & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Roy.

22 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  36 of 2015

Tapas Chakraborty,
S/O- Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty,
Mantribari Road, Agartala,
West Tripura.            ........Complainant.
    
                 ______VERSUS______
 
1. M/S Great Eastern Appliances,
66, Syed Amir Ali Avenue,
Kolkata- 700019.
 
2. The Proprietor,
Joy Ram Service,
6A, M.B. Road, Agartala,
Near Titan Showroom,
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.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Soumendu Roy,     
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        : Sri Pradip Chakborty,
                      Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                      Advocate.
                      

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  22.02.16

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Tapas Chakraborty U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is alleged that a Panasonic Digital Camera was purchased by him from O.P. No.1 along with battery. Warranty card was given by Panasonic India Ltd. on the date of purchase on 30.10.11. Some defects found in the digital camera on 30.09.14. So he went to Joyram Service Centre for repairing. He waited for long time but O.P. No.2 proprietor of the service centre failed to repair it and being  dissatisfied he filed this complaint for deficiency of service. 

        After receipt of notice O.P. No.1 did not  appear  so the case proceed against O.P. No.1 exparte.

        O.P. No.2 appeared and filed W/S. denying the claim. It is stated that the camera was sent to Siliguri service centre for repairing and after repairing O.P. No.2 asked the petitioner to pay the repairing charge of Rs.4250/- But it was not paid. Camera is still lying and O.P. No.2 is ready to give it back on payment of repairing charge.

        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the O.P. No.2 being authorized service centre failed to perform their duty and demanded charge during the warranty period?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation for deficiency of service?

        Petitioner produced certificate of warranty, job sheet, copy of letter, track record, copy of letter dated 06.02.15, exhibited and marked  exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Petitioner also examined one witness i.e., the complainant himself.

        O.P. No.2 on the other hand produced statement of affidavit. O.P. No.2 produced no evidence & cross examined the P.W.1.

        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

    FINDINGS AND DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
        It is admitted fact that the digital camera with battery was purchased from Great Eastern Appliances. The problem arise after 2 years 11 months on 30.09.14. It was lens problem. So, the petitioner went to O.P. No.2 authorized service centre for repairing. O.P. No.2 also admitted it. O.P. No.2 authorized service centre issued job sheet. It is exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 2. There it is written that there was lens problem. Camera and battery received. Exhibit- 3, is the letter by which Tapas Chakraborty requested the O.P. No.2 for delivery of digital camera. Exhibit- 5 is the letter of Post Master, where from it is found on 22.01.15 the camera was delivered to O.P. No.2. From screening and appreciating evidence given by petitioner it appears to us that the camera after repairing from Silchar was placed before the Proprietor, Panasonic Service Centre, Agartala on 22.10.15. There after it was the duty of the O.P. No.2 to call the petitioner and place the camera before it. It is true that the certificate of warranty,  Exhibit-1, name address of the petitioner not found. There was 3 years warranty on the product but in the terms and conditions it is written that company takes only manufacturing defects. The warranty does not cover from damage resulting from dust, foreign object, fire works. There was lens problem as per job sheet. Whether it is due to dust or other objects not clear. From the date of purchase for 3 years not lapsed but the warranty card itself is not duly  filled up. Name of the petitioner not found. Here the proprietor of the Joyram Service centre made  inordinate delay for repairing. It was not in a position to repair so camera was sent to Silchar service centre for repairing. After repair from the service centre from Silchar it was returned on 22.01.15. Then it was the duty of the Joyram Service centre to inform the total cost of repairing and ask the petitioner to take it back. But the service centre failed to do so, did not give any information even did not give reply to the letter given by the petitioner, Tapas Chakraborty vide Exhibit -3. Opposite party given no evidence to support that they offered the petitioner to take back the camera on payment of service charge of Rs.4250/-. The voucher of the repairing charge given by Silchar centre not produced. How the service charge of lens was Rs.4250/- not clearly explained. Whether it was the cost of lens or for cleaning  the lens not clearly stated at all. O.P. No.2 failed to explain that such amount was necessary for repairing and it does not cover the warranty reflected in the terms and conditions. No evidence given in support of the contention raised by the O.P.No.2 that Rs.4250/- was necessary for repairing within the warranty period. All these are deficiency of service. 

        Being service centre of Panasonic India it was the duty of the O.P. No.2 to repair within the warranty period or after warranty period after taking necessary charges and justify the charges that was demanded. They failed to do so and did unfair trade practice by keeping the camera in their custody for long period for more than one year without any reason. Therefore, we are of considered view that O.P.No.2 has deficiency of service and their activities is nothing but unfair trade practice. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get redress from this Consumer Court. Both the points are decided accordingly.

        In view of our findings on the above points this petition is partly allowed. We direct the O.P. No.2 to return the camera to the petitioner immediately. After receiving the amount actually spent for repairing the camera and justify it with vouchers of Silchar Service Centre of Panasonic India. We direct the O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for harassment, mental agony, deficiency of service by them for a period of one year after receiving the camera. We also direct the O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of the litigation to the petitioner, in total Rs.12,000/- and also return the camera after receiving cost of repairing as justified within a period of 2 months, failing which the amount payable 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,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
 WEST TRIPURA.