Tripura

West Tripura

CC/18/2017

Miss. Madhurima Dey. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sujan Shil, Prop. SRI SRI LAXMI Stores. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Debnath.

03 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 18 of  2017

Miss Madhurima Dey,
D/O- Sri Manik Ch. Dey,
CISF Complex, Airport Quarter B79,
P.O. Ushabazar, Agartala, 
West Tripura.            ….....…...Complainant.

             VERSUS

Sri Sujan Shil,
S/O- Nehar Chandra Shil,
Proprietor of Sri Sri Laxmi Stores,
Ushabazar, P.S. Airport,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .......... 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 Sumit Debnath,
                          Advocate.                        
                      
    For the Opposite Party        : Sri Janardhan Bhattacharjee,
                          Sri Kanu Lal Das,
                          Sri Sajib Ghosh,                  
                            Advocate.
     

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   03.05.2017

J U D G M E N T
            This case arises on the petition filed by Mudhurima Dey against one Sujan Shil,  Proprietor of Laxmi Stores. Petitioner's case in short is that she purchased one mobile phone OPPO NEO-7 for Rs.9,500/-. After few days of purchase the mobile was not working. So she went to O.P. on 23.11.16  after 33 days. The phone charged for 24 hours & it was handed over. But it was not in working condition. Again she visited the shop, Laxmi Stores. The proprietor O.P. stated that the mobile is to be sent to Guwahati for repairing. On 30.12.16 O.P. returned the phone and claimed Rs.3,000/- as repairing charge. On the next day the father of the petitioner claimed voucher of the repairing charge of service centre but the O.P. refused to give it. The mobile was not given to him. Notice served on him. And thereafter filed this case claiming Rs.50,000/-. 

2.        O.P. appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that when father of the complainant requested the O.P. they issued cash memo in the name of the complainant for mobile. Thereafter O.P. along with the father of the complainant went to the authorized service centre on 27.12.16 at Santi Para. The service centre personal stated that the mobile was immersed in water and it can be only repaired on payment of Rs.2700/-. There is no deficiency of service by the seller. 
3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (i) Whether the O.P. helped the petitioner in respect of repairing of the mobile phone at the service centre?
        (ii) Whether there was deficiency of service by O.P. No.1 and petitioner therefore entitled to get compensation?
4.        Petitioner produced the cash memo, notice, warranty card of the mobile phone. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of witness, Madhurima Dey and Manik Ch. Dey. 
        
5.        O.P. on the other hand produced reply to demand notice, postal receipt, copy of opinion/report of Sri Tapas Roy dt. 27.12.16, 3 photographs of the mobile set. Also produced the statement on affidavit of Sujan Shil. 
        
Findings and decision:
6.        We have gone through the evidence and documents filed. From the cash memo it is clear that the mobile phone was purchased on 19.10.16. Its price was Rs.19,500/-. Details of warranty not given in the photocopy of the warranty card. O.P. produced photocopy of that warranty card. There one Pacetel System Pvt. Ltd. wrote that Cell phone was inspected by him & found water damage inside. The signature was given on 27.12.16. Whether the Pacetel System Pvt. Ltd. is the authorized Service Centre of the Cellphone is not stated by the O.P. In the written statement also O.P. did not disclose the name of the service centre of the Cellphone, Oppo Neo or its manufacturer. The seller is duty bound to disclose the details of service centre & manufacturer to the customer. Failure to do so is unfair trade practice. The mobile phone was not working just after 33 days of purchase and from the warranty card and the evidence it is found that the warranty period was for one year. Within the warranty period the mobile phone was not working. According to the O.P. the mobile damaged with water logging. But it is not supported by report of any technical person of the authorized service centre. From the evidence of the petitioner it is found that mobile was not working for switch problem and O.P. sent it to Guwahati. But later it was stated that it was not sent and they claimed Rs.3000/-. In the written statement it is stated that service centre personal claimed Rs.2700/-. This is also unfair trade practice. From the evidence of both parties it is transpired that there is deficiency of service and O.P. was practicing unfair trade.  Mobile phone was kept by him for long period in the name of repairing. This is also deficiency of service. Petitioner is therefore entitled to get compensation.

7.        We therefore direct the O.P. to pay the price of the mobile phone Rs.9500/- to the petitioner for purchasing new one and we also direct O.P. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, total Rs.19,500/- for deficiency of service and price of mobile phone. Petitioner is to give back damaged mobile to O.P. if it is under her custody. Payment is to be made 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.