Tripura

West Tripura

CC/37/2016

Shri Dijendra Saha & Shri Sudip Saha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Amalendu Das. Prop. M/S Purnima Enterprise. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.H.Debbarma.

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  37 of 2016 

1. Shri Dijendra Saha,
S/O- Late Narendra Saha,
Pratapgarh, P.O.- East Pratapgarh,
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.    

2. Shri Sudip Saha,
S/O- Shri Dijendra Saha,
Pratapgarh,P.O. East Pratapgarh,
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.    ..…..…...Complainants.

            VERSUS

Shri Amalendu Das, 
S/O- Shri Dulal Das, 
Proprietor of M/S Purnima Enterprise,
Pratapgarh Bazar, Agartala,
West Tripura- 799 004.            ..............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 Herojit Debbarma,
                      Advocate.

    For the O.P.             : Sri R. Mukherjee,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 03.01.2017

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by Dijendra Saha and Sudip Saha U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Fact of the case in short is that the complainant purchased one battery operated Tricycle from the Opposite party Proprietor of Purnima Enterprise. It was assured by O.P. that Tricycle was brand new  and it is able to run at least 8 hours. After purchase the complainant registered the Tricycle and began to ran but it is found that the tricycle could not ply for more than 2 hours. Chasis of the tricycle could not bear number of passengers. Complainant then informed the matter to the O.P. The tricycle was then kept in the workshop for one month. Thereafter also the cycle was found defective. Petitioner then asked the O.P. to replace the same. But the O.P. refused to do so.  Petitioner therefore filed this petitioner claiming compensation Rs.1,56,094/-.

2.        O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the complainant earlier submitted complaint before M.G. Bazar police station and on the direction of police the battery was changed. After the change of battery the tricycle was running satisfactorily. But again complainant filed petition before Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat disposed the matter. Thereafter only to harass the O.P. this case is filed. 

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether the tricycle sold by the O.P. was defective?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get replacement  by new one and also compensation?
        
4.        Petitioner produced photocopy of bill, warranty of the battery, legal notice, money receipt. Also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., the petitioner.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the money receipt of the seat cover and changed battery. Also produced the statement on affidavit on one witness Amalendu Das. 
        
6.        On the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

        Findings and decision:
    
7.        We have gone through the money receipt, warranty card of the battery and documents filed by both the parties. It is admitted fact that petitioner Dijendra Saha purchased the tricycle on payment of Rs.1,56,094/-. According to him the tricycle was defective. It was run by battery operated electronic motor. After purchase within the warranty period battery was changed. After the change of the battery what defect was found by the complainant not clearly narrated. In para- 5, petitioner stated that battery of the tricycle was defective and it was discharges within 2 hours. As a result of the defect of the battery the tricycle could not ran for more than 2 hours. So the battery was changed by the O.P. After change of battery whether any problem arose or not, not stated by the petitioner. Only it is stated that the electronic tricycle was defective. No mechanical report  given to support that actually it was defective. The consumer is to prove that the item sold was defective and it was not giving proper service. Only change  in colour which is not the subject matter of warranty will not support the claim and allegation of the petitioner. The colour of the Tuk Tuk may be changed after some period of warranty is silent on this point. The consumer failed to prove that the Tuk Tuk was older one. Above all the Tuk Tuk was purchased for commercial purpose. Nowhere it is stated that it was purchased for earning livelihood for self employment. In this case petitioner failed to prove that there was deficiency of service by the parties. As a result the claim of the petitioner failed. Both the points are decided against the petitioner. 
        
8.        In view of our above findings over the points the petition stands dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.     

                       Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.