Tripura

StateCommission

A/6/2017

M/S. Surajit's Mobile Care - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Sujata Deb, Miss. Paramita Roy

23 Mar 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.6.2017

 

 

1. M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care,

Represented by Proprietor Surajit Dey

S/o Sri Sankar Dey,

West Tripura, Agartala.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

1. Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri,

W/o Sri Shibdas Chowdhuri

Village – T.V. Tower Lane,

Agartala, West Tripura,

 

… … … … … Respondent/ Complainant.

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                       Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Adv.

For the Respondent:                In person.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 23.03.2017

 

 

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

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No. C.C. 69 of 2016 along with an application for condoning the delay of 68 days in preferring the appeal against the aforesaid judgment.    

2. Heard Ms. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1) as well as Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) who is an Advocate, in person.
3. In the condonation petition, the reasons for delay has been explained in Paragraph-3 of the petition wherein it is stated that the employee of the appellant-opposite party no.1   received the notice of the aforesaid complaint case from the Ld. District Forum, but mistakenly, the said employee namely Tapan Debnath did not give the copy to the appellant. Thus, the opposite party no.1 was not aware about the aforesaid complaint case and the same was proceeded ex parte against the opposite party no.1. Thereafter on 20.01.2017, the opposite party no.1 received one notice from the Ld. District Forum in connection with Misc Execution Case 01/2017, only then the opposite party no.1 came to know that the aforesaid complaint case was disposed of on 08.11.2016 by allowing the complaint case. On the next day i.e. on 20.01.2017, the opposite party no.1 visited the District Forum to receive the copy of the judgment dated 08.11.2016 in Case No. CC-69/2016. The appellant-opposite party no.1 after getting the said judgment contacted with the Ld. Counsel and the Ld. Counsel after scrutiny of the record advised him to file an appeal against the said judgment. As the Counsel was out of station from 22.01.2017 to 26.01.2017 and the petitioner was seriously ill from 28.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. Ld. Counsel was again out of station from 09.02.2017 to 16.02.2017 for which the appeal could not be filed in time and there is a delay of 68 days in preferring the appeal.  
4. The respondent-complainant did not file any objection by way of affidavit, but appeared personally and objected the prayer for condonation.
5. We have gone through the reasons for delay as explained in Paragraph-3 of the condonation petition. There is no medical certificate submitted in support of the contention that the appellant-opposite party no.1 was seriously ill from 21.01.2017 to 06.02.2017. It also appears that the Ld. Counsel was out of station on two occasions. Even if we consider that the appeal could not be filed due to absence of the Ld. Counsel, then also question remain regarding the illness of the opposite party no.1. We are not really satisfied with the explanation given by the opposite party no.1 in the condonation petition. However, for the interest of justice, the delay of 68 days is hereby condoned subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost within 7 days and accordingly, the appeal is admitted.
6. The District Forum record is not necessary, as agreed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties for hearing of the appeal even without the records, the appeal is taken up for hearing at this stage itself on consent. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as the complainant in person.
7. Admitted fact is that the complainant Smt. Shilpi Chowdhuri a practicing advocate placed her mobile set namely vide item Name without ACC. A76 (Blue), Model Code: SERMOB031 to the Service Centre of the opposite party no.1 the appellant herein, on 16.07.2016 for repairing the defect of touchpad, but the mobile was not repaired in time and as she was not received the mobile in time she repeatedly knocked the opposite party no.1, but there was no response from the side of the opposite party no.1. Thereafter, a lawyer notice was sent, then also, no reply received by her. Surajit’s Mobile Care is admittedly the authorized Service Centre of Micormax and being aggrieved by the action of the Service Centre, she filed the aforesaid complaint case before the Ld. District Forum with the following relieves.

1. To pay the cost of mobile of Rs.9,999/- (b) To pay the Service Charge of Rs.500/ (c) To pay professional and personal loss of her amounting to Rs.50,000/- and (d) Rs.10,000/- for harassment and also (e) Rs.5,000/- for costs of litigation along with other prayers.

8. The opposite party no.1 did not appear even after receipt of the notice and the case was proceeded ex parte against the opposite party no.1 and finally the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant directing the opposite party no.1 for making payment of Rs.17,500/- (Rs.5,000/- as cost of the mobile + Rs.5,00/- for service charge and Rs.12,000/- for harassment and inconvenience). It is also ordered that if the mobile set is returned, then the complainant is entitled to get Rs.12,500/-. Against the judgment of the District Forum dated 08.11.2016 in the aforesaid Complainant Case in the present appeal along with the statutory deposit amounting to Rs.8,000/-.
9. In the memo of appeal, it is stated by the opposite party no.1 that the Service Centre has already deposited the mobile set of the complainant before the District Forum. It is also stated that the Service Centre has no fault as because it has received the mobile from the M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. (DL) (MXMW001).
10. The complainant appearing in person submitted that she has already received the mobile set after repairing from the District Forum. Therefore, she cannot claim the cost of mobile set amounting to Rs.5,000/- as ordered by the District Forum. She also submitted that the appeal can be disposed of by a consent order that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.8,000/- for harassment, inconvenience and cost and she may be allowed to receive the aforesaid amount from the State Commission as the said amount has already been deposited as statutory deposit and the cost awarded by this Commission while condoning the delay, which will be deposited by the opposite party no.1.
11. Ms. Deb (Gupta), Ld. Counsel readily consented to the proposal of complainant and assured this Commission that the appellant-opposite party no.1 will deposit the cost for allowing the condonation petition amounting to Rs.2,000/- within 7 days before this Commission.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum is modified to the extent that in place of Rs.12,500/- the complainant will get in total Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/- for harassment, inconvenience and cost of litigation and Rs.2,000/- for cost for condoning the delay).

Accordingly, it is ordered and the impugned judgment is modified to the extent as indicated above. Appeal is partly allowed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. District Forum.

 

 

  

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura