DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 40 of 2018

 

Sri Sagar Banik,

S/O. Sri Sahadeb Banik,

Resident of Dhaleswar, Agartala,

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura    .…..............…..........................Complainant.

 

 

VERSUS

 

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

A-18, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

 

2. G.R. Service,

16, Office Lane, Agartala-799001,

(Authorized Service Center for Sony)

Dist.-West Tripura, P.S.-West Agartala

 

3. Illusion, represented by its Proprietor

Having its office at H.G.B. Road, Melarmath, 

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura, P.S.-West Agartala. ............... Opposite parties.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

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 Saikat Saha,

  Sri Kushal Deb,

  Advocates.

For the O.P. No. I : Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,

Advocate.                                                                                                                                  

  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  01/02/2019

 

J U D G M E N T

 

The complainant Sri Sagar Banik set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case in brief is that he had purchased one Sony mobile set(Touch Screen Model No.- Xperia XAI) on payment of Rs.20,500/- from Illusion represented by its Proprietor i. e. the O.P. No.-3. After purchase of the mobile phone he had used it comfortably for 15 to 20 days and thereafter it was giving trouble. He immediately contacted the O.P. No.2 i.e. the Service Centre and that as per request of the O.P. No.2 the Complainant deposited the mobile phone with the said O.P. After few days the O.P. N.O.2 replaced the mobile set with a new set of same model. It is pleaded by the Complainant that the replaced mobile phone after few months also stared giving problem and that on 17/01/2018 the Complainant as per request of the O.P. No.2 again deposited the said mobile phone with the O.P. No.2 which was again replaced by a new set. The Complainant further alleged that thereafter similar problems also arose on 28/03/2018, 04/04/2018 & 07/05/2018 and in all the above days the Complainant visited the service centre. In all those occasions the Complainant was favoured with new mobile phones replacing the previous mobile phones. The Complainant further alleged that on 20/06/2018 he again found that touch problem had arisen in the mobile phone which was lastly replaced on 07/05/2018 and that this matter was duly intimated by the Complainant to the O.P. No.2 i.e. the Service Centre. The O.P. No.2 then requested the Complainant to deposit the mobile phone giving him assurance to replace the same with a new one as were done earlier. The Complainant then requested the O.P. No.2 to refund the price of the mobile phone or arrange for extending the warranty period stating the reasons that he could not use the mobile phone for continuous period of one month after purchasing the mobile phone initially on 30/06/2017. The Complainant pleaded that the O.P. N0.2 having had consultation  with the O.P. No.1 has turned down the proposal of the Complainant. The Complainant in his complaint apprehends that the mobile phone which was purchased by him from the O.P. No.3 had inherent manufacturing defect which the O.P. No.2 could not cure and that in order to avoid the benefit of warranty to be availed of by him the O.Ps. had intentionally resorted to replacing the mobile phone a number of times as an when the complainant had approached the O.P. No.2 with problems in his mobile phone. The complainant asserted that he being a practicing Advocate suffered mental agony, harassment and inconvenience with defective mobile phone which was purchased by him from the O.P. No.3. He  has thus filed the complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.Ps. claiming Rs.30,000/- for professional loss, Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment, Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost and refund of Rs.20,500/- being the cost of the mobile set. 

In due course of time notices were sent from this Forum to the O.Ps. Inspite of receiving notices the O.P. Nos.2&3 have not appeared before the Forum. As per order dated 09/08/2018 passed by this Forum the case was proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.1 Sony India Private Limited however has  appeared. From the case record it transpires that on 04/09/2018 on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 1,2&3 written statement, evidence by way of Affidavit on behalf of the O.Ps. and three documents have been filed before the Forum. The W.S. and the evidence by way of Affidavit of the O.Ps. have been verified by Priyank Chauhan, the Authorized Representative of the O.P. No.1. 

The O.Ps. in their written statement have admitted about the purchase of Sony XPERIA XA1 mobile phone by the Complainant on 30/06/2017 from the O.P. No.3 on payment of Rs.20,500/-. The O.Ps. pleaded that the Complainant had visited the O.P. No.2 who is the Authorized Service Centre on 24/01/2018, 04/04/2018 & 10/05/2018 with his mobile phone complaining touch problem and problems relating to “Charging and Battery”. In all the occasions the service centre without any delay attended the Complainant and also inspected the handset. The service centre had replaced the handset with refurbished in all the occasions free of costs. The O.Ps. have denied any deficiency of service committed by them towards the Complainant. The O.P. also denied any manufacturing defect in the mobile phone as alleged by the Complainant.

The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

2. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 06 documents viz Purchase invoice issued by the O.P. No.3 & Service job sheets issued by the O.P. No.2 Service Centre. The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

 

On behalf of the O.Ps. no witness turned up though three (03) dates had been posted for OPW. 

However, along with the W.S. the O.P. No.1 submitted two(02) documents in xerox copies namely copy of Board Resolution Dated 07/02/2014 & copy of the warranty terms. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

3.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

    (i). Whether  the mobile phone purchased by the Complainant was defective?  

(ii).  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get refund of the cost of the mobile phone? 

(iii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

4. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  Now we are to decide the issues on consideration of the materials on record. 

  It is admitted and established fact that the Complainant had purchased the Sony mobile hand set( Touch Screen Model No.- Xperia XAI) from the O.P. No.3 i.e. Illusion represented by its Proprietor, Melarmath, Agartala on 30/06/2017 on payment of Rs.20,500/-. It is also admitted fact that the Complainant was experiencing multiple problems in the mobile set within one (01) month of its use. He had visited the Service Centre i.e. O.P. No.2 on five(05) dates i.e. on 10/08/2017, 17/01/2018, 20/01/2018, 28/03/2018, 04/04/2018 & 07/05/2018 for getting the mobile set repaired. Each time he had been given copies of Service job sheets by the Service Centre. From the Service job sheets it reveals that the mobile set of the Complainant was having touch problems, display problem & problems in the battery(Draining faster). It further appears from the evidence of the Complainant that five (05) times the mobile set were replaced by the O.P. Nos.2&3. But the Complainant has not been supplied with defect-less  mobile set even within the warranty period. From the Evidence-in-chief (at para-6) by way of Affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the O.Ps., we find that the Complainant had been provided with refurbished hand sets by the O.P. No.2 as and when he had approached the O.P. No.2 with his defective mobile set as a measure of replacement. So it is sufficiently proved that the Complainant has not been provided with new mobile set in exchange of the mobile set which he had purchased from the O.P. No.3 on 03/06/2017 which was found giving problems within one (01) month of its' use. It is evident from the Examination-in-Chief of the Complainant(at para-6) that the Complainant had contacted with the customer care of the O.P. No.1 over mobile phone and also he had personally approached the O.P. No.2 i.e. the Service Centre for refund of the price of his mobile set as he could not use the hand set  continuously for one(01) month satisfactorily after purchase of it. But his claim was not entertained. We noticed that the O.Ps. did not come forward to adduce oral evidence and thus got themselves avoided being cross examined by the Complainant. It is a matter of great concern to us that the Complainant could not use his mobile hand set satisfactorily though he had purchased it from the O.P. No.3 on consideration of handsome amount of Rs.20,500/-. The O.Ps. according to us have indulging in unfair trade practice. 

In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to us due to the deficiency of service Committed by the O.Ps. the Complainant suffered harassment and mental agony.

The issues which were framed are accordingly decided in favour of the Complainant. 

 

5. In the result we direct the O.P. Nos.1&3 jointly and severely to return the cost of the mobile hand set amounting to  Rs.20.500/- to the Complainant and pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for causing harassment along with Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.38,500/-(Rs.20,500/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made. We further direct that the Complainant shall return the mobile set as and when the O.P. Nos. 1&3 make payment to him the cost of the mobile set.

 

ANNOUNCED