Tripura

West Tripura

CC/16/2017

Sri Dipraj Debbarma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 16 of 2017

Sri Dipraj Debbarma,
S/O- Sri Lalit Debbarma,
Ujjan Abhoynagar,
Near Puthiba Mandir,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ..…..…...Complainants.

          VERSUS

     1. Sony India Private Ltd.,
A-31, Mohan Corporative
Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi- 110044.

2. Illusion (Service),
    44, Central Raod, Agartala,
    West Tripura.             ........Opposite Party.

                 __________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    : In person. 
                          
    For the O.P. No.1         : Sri Prabir Kr. Chakraborty,
                      Sri Arijit Debnath,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No.2        : Sri Debalay Bhattacharya,
                  Sri Arghya Kusum Paul,
                  Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   26.04.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the application filed by Dipraj Debbarma U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one mobile on payment of Rs.15,900/-. After purchase the mobile set was disturbing. He had to bear the trouble for 9 months. But when the screen was not visible he went to the seller Illusion. He advised him to make contact with the service centre as there is a service centre at Agartala. Accordingly he made contact with Illusion, service centre. On 26.12.16 he went to the service centre for repairing the mobile phone. On 02.02.17 after 2 months service centre claimed Rs.4500/- as repairing cost. It was within the warranty period but service centre insisted for payment and did not return his mobile. So he claimed compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/, interest and litigation cost. 

2.        O.P. No.2 appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is asserted that Rs.4500/- was claimed as warranty did not cover the damage found in the mobile phone. 

3.        Sony India Pvt. Ltd., O.P. No.1 Manufacturer filed written statement. It is stated that O.P. No.2 is not the authorized service centre of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. He stated that mobile set was defective so Rs.4500/- was rightly demanded. 

4.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I)Whether the mobile phone was not working within the warranty period and demand of repairing charge was improper?
        (II)Whether the O.Ps have deficiency of service and therefore petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

5.        Petitioner side produced the Cash Memo, Job Card and also his statement is recorded by this Forum.

6.        O.P. No.1 produced the statement on affidavit of one Mr. Priyank Chohan. Also produced certified copy of resolution, warranty claims management system.

On the basis of all these evidence we shall no determine the points.
            Findings and decision:
8.        It is admitted and established fact that the mobile phone was purchased by the petitioner from the Illusion of H.G.B. Road, Agartala. The invoice produced established that on payment of Rs.15,900/- the mobile phone was purchased on 15.01.16. Warranty period was for one year. From the job card produced it is found that mobile phone was received by the service centre Illusion (Service), O.P. No.2 on 19.12.16. Problem was of On/Off(Wifi not working) as per job card. O.P. No.2 service centre received it. Nowhere in the job card it is written that it is out of warranty. On/Off problem is not out of warranty at all.

9.        O.P. No.2 the service centre in the written statement stated that warranty will not be given for any broken, burnt, short circuit, liquidity tempered cases. But for on/off problem solution why warranty not given is not stated. 

10.        O.P. No.1 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. stated that O.P. No.2 Illusion service centre is not the authorized service centre of Sony. If it is not authorized service centre then where the service centre of Sony product is available at Agartala is not stated at all. Illusion sold out the mobile phone and Informed that Illusion(Service)  is authorized service centre. But according to manufacturer it was not authorized service centre. 

11.        Mr. Priyank Chohan, Executive Customer Care of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. stated in the statement on affidavit that in the warranty management system there is no clause for global support. Expiry date of warranty is written 17.01.2017. So within the warranty period the mobile was placed before the service centre. After 2 months it was repaired but the service centre claimed Rs.4,500/-. As the mobile phone was received within the warranty period by the service centre it can not say that warranty already expired. Delivery date was given 21.12.16 within the warranty period but it was not delivered. The petitioner could not wait for such long time as he was in need of mobile phone every day. So he purchased another mobile and was not in need of repaired mobile which finally repaired after 2 months. 

12.        All these acts of Illusion service centre of O.P. No.2 is unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. who marketed the product had to take care about the service of their product in India and all places where the product is sent for sale. This was not done by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner therefore is entitled to get compensation. He is yet to get the repaired mobile phone from the O.P. who offered it in the court. Both the points are decided accordingly.    

13.        We therefore have come to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service by both the O.Ps. We direct the O.P. No.2 to pay the price of the mobile phone Rs.15,900/- to the petitioner. Petitioner was harassed for delay in getting the mobile phone. So O.P. No.2 is to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the petitioner. O.P. No.1, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,900/-. Direct both the O.Ps to pay the amount to the petitioner within one month. If it is not paid it 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, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.