Tripura

StateCommission

A/29/2017

Illusion (Service) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Dipraj Debbarma - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Mr. Ashish Das

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.29.2017

 

 

1. Illusion (Service),

44, Central Raod, Agartala,

West Tripura. 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

 

•  

 

1. Sri Dipraj Debbarma,
   S/o Sri Lalit Debbarma,
   Ujjan Abhoynagar, Near Puthiba Mandir,
   Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

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

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

For the Appellant:                                           Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1:                                  In person.    

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   18.07.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal filed by the appellant, Illusion (Service) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 16 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) Sri Dipraj Debbarma and directed the appellant (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2) to pay the price of the mobile phone Rs.15,900/- and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1), Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,900/-. Both the opposite parties were also directed to pay the aforesaid amount within one month and if the same is not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Debaloy Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.2 as well as Sri Dipraj Debbarma, petitioner appearing in person.

3. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant-opposite party no.2 and the respondent-petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage.  
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Respondent no.1-petitioner, Sri Dipraj Debbarma purchased one Sony Xperia M4 mobile handset on payment of Rs.15,900/- from the opposite party no.2, the appellant herein, on 15.01.2016 vide Invoice No.570. After purchase, the mobile handset was disturbing. He had to bear the trouble for 9 months, but when the screen was not visible, he went to the seller, Illusion and the said seller advised him to make contact with the service centre as there is a service centre at Agartala, namely, Illusion (Service), 44, Central Road, Agartala. Accordingly, the petitioner made contact with Illusion Service Centre and on 26.12.2016, he went to the service centre for repairing the mobile phone and the servicer centre received the mobile handset. On 02.02.17 after two months, the service centre claimed Rs.4,500/- as repairing cost though the defect of the mobile was noticed within the warranty period. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite party no.2, the petitioner filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum for claiming compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/, interest and cost of litigation. 

5. Both opposite party no.1 Sony India Private Ltd., the Manufacturer and opposite party no.2, the appellant herein, appeared and filed their respective written statement denying the claim of the petitioner. Sony India Private Ltd. in its written statement specifically stated that the opposite party no.2 is not the authorized service centre of Sony India Private Ltd. and according to the opposite party no.1, mobile set was defective so Rs.4,500/- was rightly demanded.
6. Opposite party no.2, Illusion (Service) appeared through its proprietor Rupam Roy had denied and disputed the contention of the petitioner that he met with the seller opposite party no.2 and on his advice, it has taken to the service centre. Though, the opposite party no.2 specifically admitted that the petitioner delivered his mobile to the service centre for making the software up-to-date as the version supplied to the handset circuits not reconciling the updated application. It is also contended by the opposite party no.2 that the handset found to be water logged, so the benefit should not be extended to the petitioner and as such, there was no deficiency in service.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. District Forum had formulated the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the mobile phone was not working within the warranty period and demand of repairing charge was improper?
2. Whether the opposite parties have deficiency of service and therefore petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

8.    In support of the contention of the petitioner, he has produced the Cash Memo, Job Card and also examined himself as witness.
9. Opposite party no.1 Sony India Private Ltd. produced the statement on affidavit of one Mr. Priyank Chauhan as authorized by the opposite party no.1 and also produced certified copy of resolution, warranty claims management system. But opposite party no.2 declined to give evidence even after vacating the ex parte order dated 17.03.2017.
10. The Ld. District Forum considering the evidence on record as well as the documents exhibited passed the impugned judgment.
11. The opposite party no.1 Sony India Private Ltd., the Manufacturer did not prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment as the opposite party no.1 has already complied with the direction of the District Forum so far they are concerned.
12. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the opposite party no.2, Illusion (Service) has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. District Forum did not provide any opportunity to the appellant-opposite party no.2 to adduce any evidence and decided the case summarily which is ex facie illegal.
13. Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite party no.2 while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence on record particularly, that the mobile handset in dispute found to be water logged. So, the benefits should not be extended to the petitioner as awarded by the Ld. District Forum. He has also submitted that the award passed by the Ld. District Forum is also exorbitant or higher in side. He has finally contended that the mobile handset, which was produced before the Ld. District Forum, as the same was in working condition.
14. Mr. Dipraj Debbarma, petitioner in person while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the opposite party no.1 Sony India Private Ltd. has already complied with the direction of the Ld. District Forum so far they are concerned and also issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5,068/- in his favour. He has further submitted that from the invoice issued by the Illusion, it would be evident that the cost of the mobile set is Rs.15,900/- and from the job card issued by the opposite party no.2, it would be transpired that the problem of the mobile handset was regarding on/off problem, (Wi-Fi not work) and also the opposite party no.2 demanded Rs.4,500/- for repairing of the mobile handset though, the mobile handset was handed over to the service centre was within the warranty period of one year.
15. We have gone through the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum from which it appears that on 17.03.2017, the Ld. District Forum passed the following orders “Complainant is present. No step from the O.P. No written objection filed by O.P. So case will be decided experte. To 22.03.2017 for experte for evidence.” On 22.03.2017, complainant was present and the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. also appeared and prayed for time to give evidence by vacating ex parte order and to file written objection. Prayer was considered by the Ld. District Forum and allowed as last chance on condition that the O.P. shall pay adjournment cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant and fixed the matter on 28.03.2017 for written objection by the O.P. As per order dated 22.03.2017, both the opposite parties filed their written statement/written objection and the Ld. District Forum examined the complainant/petitioner and he was also cross-examined by the Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.1, Sony India Private Ltd. Cross-examination by the opposite party no.2 was dispensed with. Not only that, statement on affidavit of two O.P.W. is given by the opposite party no.1. Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.2 declined to give any evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant-opposite party no.2 was not given any opportunity either to adduce evidence or to cross-examine the petitioner/complainant. We have also gone through the job card issued by the Illusion (Service) from which it appears that the problem with the mobile handset was on/off problem, (Wi-Fi not work), but there is no mention that the mobile set was found to be water logged. Therefore, according to us, the contention made in the written objection is nothing but an afterthought. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 neither submitted any statement on oath nor examined any witness and in absence of any evidence on the part of the opposite party no.2, the judgment of the Ld. District Forum cannot be questioned. Admittedly, the mobile handset was purchased on 15.01.2016 and the same was placed before the service centre, the opposite party no.2 on 19.12.2016 and the delivery date was 21.12.2016 i.e. within the warranty period, but the handset was not delivered. The Ld. District Forum very rightly said that 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 two months. As admittedly, the mobile handset was purchased at the cost of Rs.15,900/-, the Ld. District Forum only directed to pay the price of the mobile phone to the petitioner by the opposite party no.2 and for harassment and deficiency of service, to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Therefore, according to us, the award passed by the Ld. District Forum is not higher in side as contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

The stay order passed by this Commission on 03.06.2017 stands vacated.         

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura