Tripura

West Tripura

CC/69/2016

Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Surajit Mobile Care. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  69 of 2016 

Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri,
W/O Sri Shibdas Chowdhuri,
T.V. Tower Lane
Agartala, Tripura (West)                ....…...Complainant.

         

            VERSUS

 

M/S. Surajits Mobile Care,
1st Floor, H.G.B. Road, Melarmath,
Agartala, Tripura(West)                ..........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        : Complainant is person. 
                          Advocate.

For the O.P.                  : None appeared. 
                      

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  08.11.2016

 

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case was filed by one Shilpi Choudhury alleging about the deficiency of service by M/S Surajits Mobile Care. Petitioner placed the mobile set before Surajit Mobile on 16.07.16 for repairing. Advance Rs.500/- was paid but mobile was not repaired. Repeatedly petitioner knocked Surajits Mobile Care but no response given. Then Lawyer's notice was sent. But no response given. It was informed that Surajit Mobile Care has no skilled staff for repairing the mobile of Micromax but it is authorized service centre of Micromax and doing unfair trade practice. Petitioner therefore, prayed for cost of mobile. 
        Notice sent to the Micromax service centre, Surajit Mobile Care. But none appeared to defend the case.  Case then proceeded exparte. 
        Petitioner produced the job sheet, photocopy of some certified copy of order, legal notice. Also produced the statement on affidavit.
        We have gone through the evidence given. On the basis of evidence we shall now determine whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of Surajit Mobile Care.
Findings & Decision:
    Price of the mobile is written Rs.9999/- but the cash memo of purchase is not produced to support that its actual price was Rs.9999/-. The Forum can not take decision without support of any documents only upon oral evidence. It is also stated that mobile phone was not returned by the O.P. Surajit Mobile Care. Mobile set was sent to the company but after tracking  its where about is not found. 
        Surajit Mobile Care is the service centre where the petitioner produced the mobile for repairing. It was received. Job sheet given but after certain period it was not repaired even the mobile was not delivered. This is deficiency of service. Surajit Mobile Care being service centre is not doing fair trade. It has taken Rs.500/- for repairing. The amount not returned, mobile also not repaired. So this is unfair trade practice also. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for this unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by Surajit Mobile Care. We consider that the price of the mobile phone was Rs.5,000/- as nothing given to support its price. In case the mobile is not returned Surajit Mobile Care is to pay Rs.5000/- cost of the mobile along with Rs.500/-, service charge, for harassment inconvenience petitioner is also entitled to get amount of Rs.12,000/-. Thus, in total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.17,500/-. Surajit Mobile Care is directed to pay the amount within 2(two) months, in case the mobile is returned then petitioner is entitled to get Rs.12,500/-.

                     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.