West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/90/2016

Sri Krishanu Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Suvojit Dutta

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                        DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

 

Complaint Case No.90/2016

 

Sri Krishanu Ghosh S/o-Late Ganesh Chandra Ghosh, Inda, Saratpally,

P.O.-Inda,  P.S.-Khargpur (T),

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110044 and another………....…Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Surajit Dutta,  Advocate.

 For the O.P.              :     

 

Decided on: - 31/01/2017

                               

ORDER

                         Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member – The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant is a permanent resident of India and he purchased a Sony Xperia M4Aqua E-2363 Black Mobile Hand Set from ADANS MARKETING PVT. LTD., Kharagpur branch, India, New Town , Kharagpur being the dealer of Sony product and paid the sum of Rs.18,500/- as the consideration for the handset.

                    The complainant states that the complainant purchased the said handset with the financial assistance of Bajaj Finance Ltd. and out of Rs.18,500/-, the complainant has taken a sum of Rs.6,180/- has been paid by Bajaj  Finance ltd. It is settled that the monthly installment of Rs.12,320/- alongwith all  changes will be of Rs.1,541/-payable from the month of November, 2015 for a period of 8 (eight) months and  accordingly

Contd………..P/2

                                          

( 2 )

the complainant cleared all the EMI’s  by drawing A/c payee cheques in favour of the Bajaj Finance Co. Ltd. The complainant states that the O.P. No.1 is the company, O.P. No.2 is the Regional Office and the O.P. No.3 is the authorized servicing center and the addressee No.4 is the dealers of the O.P. The complainant further states that the  complainant purchased the mobile handset on 31/10/2015 and the warranty period is valid upto 31/10/2016. After purchasing the mobile handset and connecting the same  with the networking system and it is seen that the handset is functioning properly but  suddenly on 29^th day of December, 2015 the handset developed smile problems and become unusable. The complainant states and contends that  the  handset mobile was taken for repairing to the O.P. No.3 and accordingly a job card was opened and after repairing the said mobile handset was handed over to the complainant and the job sheet was handed over to the responded no.3 by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the repaired mobile handset. The complainant states that again on 11^th April, 2016 the handset  became non functioning and again the hand set handed over to the O.P. No.3 and since the said handset is lying at the end of O.P.no.3 and the O.P. no.3 demanding  a sum of Rs.13,400/- for repairing the handset within the said warranty period and O.P. no.3 sent a e-mail to the complainant in the said matter. The complainant states that the hand set was purchase by the complainant and within the warranty period the said handset was sent for repairing to the O.P. no.3. The  complainant states that he prays for either repairing the handset or  replace the said handset. But the O.P. without  replacing the same demands a  sum of Rs.13,400/- for  repairing  the handset which is illegal arbitrary and malafide all of the O.P. No.3. The complainant states that the said handset has major fault for which the O.P. No.3 demanded Rs.13,400/- for  repairing cost within the statutory period of its warranty. The  complainant contends that since 11/04/2015 the  said handed set is unusable and is lying with the O.P. No.3.  O.P. no.3 neither thoroughly repairs the said    handset nor replaces the same and the same tantamount to deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Having no other remedy the complainant issued  notice upon the O.ps. but despite receiving the said letter the O.P. has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. So the act of the O.ps. is total deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. which they legally bound to provide service to the complainant but they have willfully, deliverablely and with malafide intention failed to provide. Thus the complainant prays for an order  from the Honor’s Forum with a direction  to replace the similar  mobile handset or to refund the said sum of  Rs.18,500/- alongwith 15% interest and also prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Contd………..P/3

                                         

 

( 3 )

            In view of the fact it is crystal clear the O.P. parties did not provide service to the complainant and also avoids to replace the said handset by a new one or o repair the said handset.

           So it is a fit case to hold that the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency of service against the Ops.

          Notice of this case was duly served upon the Ops. and the Ops. appeared to contest the case. Though the O.P. have filed w/o but they did not appear regular the conduced of the Ops. are not states factory.  After filing the w/o they did not take proper steps and none appears on their  behalf. It is shown in the record that 2 times ex-parte order has been passed against the Ops. and there after the Ops. prays for vacating  the ex-parte order on 19/12/2016 neither the Ops nor their lawyer is present to move the said alleged affidavit and the case has been proceeded ex-parte hearing.

           In this connection to prove this case some documents have been filed by the complainant and he binders an affidavit-in-chief supported by an affidavit.

               Documents filed

              Tax invoice and Money receipt

               Warranty Card

       Job Card issued at the time of receiving the handset alongwith the e-mail demandey the  said sum.   

 

                                        Hence,

                                                     it is,

ORDERED

                                                                   that the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte. The complainant do get Rs.18,500/-  for the cost of the mobile hand set or replace the handset by a new one for deficiency of service payable by the O.Ps. to the complainant O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for compensation, for harassment and mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- within 60 days from the date of this order.

               Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                     

                          Member                                      Member                                   President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur