Tripura

West Tripura

CC/5/2016

Sri Subrata Malakar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Surajit Dey, Prop. Of Surajit Mobile Care & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   05   of   2016
        
Sri Subrata Malakar,
S/O- Lt. Amarendra Malakar,
West Noabadi(Senpara),
P.O- West Noabadi, Amtali,
P.S. BodhjungNagar,
West Tripura.           ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

1. Sri Surajit Dey,
Proprietor of Surajit Mobile Care,
1st Floor, H.G.B. Road,
Melarmath, Agartala,
West Tripura.

2. The Officer In-charge,
Micromax Mobile Company Micromax House,
697, Udyog, Phase V-India, 
Haryana.                      .........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.

C O U N S E L

For the complainant        : Complainant in person.

For the O.P. No.1            : Mrs. Sujata DebGupta),
                      Sri Sankar Lal Chakraborty,                              Smt. Paramita Roy,
                      Advocates.    

For the O.P. No.2            : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Advocates.                                                       
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  29.04.2016

J U D G M E N T
        
        None appeared. Judgment announced today. Judgment runs as follows:
        One Subrata Malakar filed the case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He purchased one mobile from Sarada Enterprise on 10.07.15. After 3 months the mobile was switched off and not working. So, he went to the authorized service centre Surajit Mobile Care for repairing. Surajit Mobile Care assured to repair within 15 days. But after 15 days it was not repaired. So, the petitioner filed this case for compensation.

        Opposite party appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. He stated that the parts were not available at Agartala. So, it was sent to Haryana as per instruction of the company. After repairing the mobile set was sent back after 2½ months. Surajit Mobile Care could not make contact with the petitioner and he is ready return it. 

        In this case only point to determine is that whether the petitioner suffered for the deficiency of service by O.P. No.1 Surajit Mobile Care, Service Centre and the company Micromax, O.P. No.2.

        Both side adduced evidence. Petitioner himself appeared as the witness and O.P. No.2 also appeared as a witness.
        
        We have gone through the evidence produced by both the parties  to decide  the matter.

    FINDINGS: 
        It is admitted fact that the mobile set was placed before the Surajit's Mobile Care for repairing. Surajit's Mobile Care promised to repair it within 15 days but it was not repaired. After 2½ months the mobile set was repaired and Surajit's Mobile Care offered to take it back.

        It is admitted fact that there was delay of 2½  months for repairing the mobile set. The Micromax company did not appear in this case and it was therefore admitted that the mobile set of the company did not work after 3 months. Warranty period was for one year. But mobile set was switched off after 3 months. The Micromax Mobile company failed to provide the spare parts for repairing the mobile set at Agartala. As spare parts not available  O.P. No.1, Surajit Mobile Care sent the mobile set to Haryana for repairing. Thus, the delay caused due to deficiency of service of Micromax company. Micromax Mobile company was supposed to keep all the spare parts for repairing at Agartala service centre. It failed to do so and doing unfair trade practice at Agartala. O.P. No.1, Surajit Mobile Care admittedly failed to repair it within  15 days and caused delay in supply of mobile set after repairing. It was not handed over to Subrata Malakar in time. Thus, it has shared of negligence and deficiency of service.

        These days mobile set is necessary every day. One will suffer much and can not lead his life without mobile set for 2 ½ months. He will be cut out from all sort of communication and therefore in such a situation he or she will have to purchase another mobile set., This is harassment indeed and caused loss to the petitioner. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation.    Points No.1 is decided accordingly.  

        In view of  above findings we direct that Micromax Mobile company shall pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. We also direct Surajit Mobile Care to return the mobile set to the petitioner along with Rs.1000/-. We also award cost of Rs.5,000/- in favour of petitioner Subrata Malakar as cost of litigation. We direct Micromax Mobile company to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen Thousand) to the petitioner. Surajit Mobile Care  is directed to return the mobile set to the petitioner along with Rs.1,000/-(One Thousand) for deficiency of service within 2(two) months, if 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.