Tripura

StateCommission

A/21/2021

Sri Mridul Kanti Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Gita Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

Self

09 Jul 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No. A.21.2021

 

1. Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

S/o Sri Bhagirath Ch. Arya,

C/o Indra Mohan Debbarma,

Resident of A.A. Road, Radha Madhav Sarani,

Opposite of Tarun Sangha Club,

P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala, Pin - 799007,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

Vs

 

1. The Proprietor

Gita Enterprise, 

Hari Ganga Basak Road, Near Agiya Chalo Sangha,

Melarmath, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

 

2. The Manager,

Bajaj Finserv Ltd. 

Ground Floor Banik Kutir,

Sankar Chowmuni, Krishna Nagar,

Near Sanghati Club, P.O. Agartala,

Agartala, P.S.West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

 

3. Sony Authorized Service Centre, 

Dhaleswar Road No.1, Kargil Chowmuni,

Near Lotus Club, P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala, 

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799007.

 

4. CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd.

Ground floor, Wing-A, Tower-A, 

Golf View Corporate Tower,

Golf Course Road, Sector-42,

Gurgaon, Hariyana, Pin - 122002.

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Parties.

 

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                                       In person

For the Respondent No.1:                                           Absent.

For the Respondent No.2:                                           Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3:                                           Absent.

For the Respondent No.4:                                           Mr. Shubham Ghosh, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:                             09.07.2021.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed against the judgment dated 07.05.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.101 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that the documents submitted by the complainant in support of his claim is very much contradictory and inconsistent and the warranty card issued by the Sony is very much clear that the warranty period is one year and it is found that the purchased TV has been disorder after expiry of warranty period given by the manufacturer.

2. Heard Sri Mridul Kanti Arya, the appellant appearing in person (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2). Heard also Mr. Shubham Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.4). None appears for the respondent no.1 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1 and 3)
3. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Mridul Kanti Arya purchased one Sony LED TV on 03.05.2018 vide model No.KLV-32W672EIN518874701 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the Proprietor Gita Enterprise by availing loan as monthly EMI from the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. The complainant also purchased extra extended warranty for one year for an amount of Rs.2,266/- from the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. In the month of October, 2019, the complainant found display of his LED TV was not working properly. Thereafter, on 13.11.2019, the complainant made contact with the Sony Service Centre at Agartala and after proper verification of his TV they provided him one estimate statement for an amount of Rs.11,459/- which the complainant to submit before the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. for repairing the picture panel of the TV. On the next date he went to office of the opposite party no.2 situated at Sankar Chowmuni, Agartala from where he came to know opposite party no.2 only financer, but insurance was provided by CPP Asset Care. He also came to know that the opposite party no.2 collaborate with opposite party no.4 provided the insurance to the customer. Thereafter, he collected the insurance paper from the office of the opposite party no.2 where his membership no. was given AC1340612, then he made contact with the customer care but they refused to pay the estimated amount on the ground that in the insurance papers it is specifically mentioned that Sony India Limited will bear 2 year manufacturer warranty and after expiry of that period CPP Asset Care will bear 1 year extended warranty. Thereafter, he again made contact with Sony Service Centre and told them the above facts then they showed him the warranty card by which Sony Service Centre will be liable for any defect up to one year from the date of the purchase. On 16.11.2019 he sent one email to the CPP Asset Care to resolve the dispute, but they did not give any response of him. Subsequently on so many occasions, he made contact with the opposite party no.2, 3 and 4, but no solution was found.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Commission claiming Rs.1,48,000/- as deficiency of service as well as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and travel costs from the opposite parties.

4. Sri Arya, appellant-complainant has submitted that the learned District Commission committed error while passing the impugned judgment particularly regarding the documents exhibited by the appellant-complainant. He further submits that from the evidence on record it appears that the warranty of purchased TV was for one year from the date of purchase and when finance by the respondent-opposite party, Bajaj Finserv Ltd. for purchasing the LED TV he was asked to purchase insurance policy from the respondent-opposite party no.4 and extra extended warranty for another year for an amount of Rs.2,266/- and accordingly, he has purchased the policy for the extra one year extended warranty from the respondent-opposite party no.4 through respondent-opposite party no.2, Bajaj Finserv Ltd. He has finally contended that the amount for insurance policy also included with the loan amount finance by the opposite party no.2.
5. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel has submitted that though they have received notice, but could not appear before the learned District Commission and it would be proper to remand back the case after setting aside the order so that they can adduce their evidence. He has also submitted that though opposite party no.2 received the money for the insurance policy from the complainant, but the said amount was remitted to the respondent-opposite party no.4, Manager Customer Services, CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, if there is any deficiency of service that was done by the respondent-opposite party no.4.
6. Mr. Ghosh, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-opposite party no.4 has submitted his written argument from which it appears that the extended warranty was provided by the opposite party no.2 not by the opposite party no.4. Though on quarries by this Commission he has admitted that the premium of the insurance policy was received by the opposite party no.4 from the opposite party no.2.
7. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. We have also considered the submission of Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties. According to us, it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remand back the case to the learned District Commission to decide the case on merit providing opportunity to the respondent-opposite party no.2 and 4 to submit their written objection and/or adduce any evidence, if so advised.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Commission to decide the case in accordance with law taking note of our observation.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Here, we are of the view that it would be proper to award some cost which shall be paid by the opposite party no.2 and 4 to the appellant-complainant. Accordingly, the respondent-opposite party no.2 and 4 shall pay Rs.2,000/- each to the appellant-complainant as cost which shall be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of the judgment,

Send down the records to the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura