Tripura

StateCommission

A/17/2017

M/S. Surajit's Mobile Care - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Khokan Deb - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Sujata Deb , Miss. Paramita Roy, Miss. Arpita Bhattarchjee, Mr. Bikram Paul

06 May 2017

ORDER

 

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.17.2017

 

 

 

1. M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care,

Represented by Proprietor Surajit Dey

S/o Sri Sankar Dey, 1^st

Floor, H.G.B. Road, Melarmath,

West Tripura, Agartala.

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.3.

​

1. Sri Khokan Deb,

S/o Sri Haripada Deb,

Resident of Village - Chandinamura,

P.O. West Bhubanban,

Agartala, West Tripura,

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

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:                                           Miss Parumita Roy, Adv.       

For the Respondent:                                 In person.    

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:   06.05.2017.

 

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

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant, M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 09 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition and directed the opposite parties Sansui India Ltd. and M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Both are jointly liable to pay the amount. Ld. District Forum also directed M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care to return the mobile set, which is repaired by him at once. If the directions are not followed, then the petitioner will get interest over the amount @9% per annum.  

1. Heard Miss Parumita Roy, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant, M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3) and also Sri Khokan Deb, respondent-complainant, who has appeared in person (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner).
2. As the District Forum record has already been received and the parties are agreed to for final disposal of the appeal at this stage, the matter is taken for final disposal.
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

Respondent-complainant, Mr. Khokan Deb purchased a mobile set on 16.09.2016 on payment of cash Rs.2,689/- on online shopping, but after using the mobile set for one month, it was not working. Screen of the mobile set was not visible and it got automatically switched off. So, he made contact with the appellant, M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care, Authorised Service Centre of Sansui India Ltd., the opposite party no.1. After one month, the mobile set was given back to the respondent-complainant. The respondent-complainant used it for 4/5 days, and again the mobile set was disturbing. Then the complainant went to M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care again and handed over the defective mobile phone to them. Surajit’s Mobile Care promised to repair it, but even after completion of one month, the mobile set was not repaired and the same was also not returned. Thereafter, respondent-complainant waited for two months and then he had filed the complaint case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service of the opposite party.

The Ld. District Forum after admitting the complaint case issued notice to the opposite parties and the matter was fixed on 23.02.2017 for service report and written objection. On 23.02.2017, complainant was present, the Advocate for the opposite party, Surajit’s Mobile Care was also appeared and prayed for time to file the written objection, which was allowed, and the case was fixed on 27.02.2017 for written objection by opposite party. On 27.02.2017, the complainant was present, but no step was taken by the opposite party and even no written objection was also filed. Thus, the case was proceeded against the opposite party for taking ex parte evidence and the matter was fixed on 10.03.2017. On that day, the respondent-complainant was present and the Ld. Advocate for the opposite party no.3 M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care was also present. Ex parte evidence of the complainant was recorded and he was cross-examined by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant-opposite party M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care. After hearing the parties on 10.03.2017, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment. As the opposite party nos.1 & 2 did not appear even after receiving the notice, the case was proceeded ex parte against them.

Appellant M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care though appeared, but filed no written statement denying the case of the complainant.

In view of the above, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).  

4. Miss Roy, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submits that on 03.03.2017, the Advocate for the appellant prepared written statement and petition for vacating the ex parte order, but the Ld. District Forum did not accept the petition and also did not allow any further time. She also contended that admittedly, the respondent-complainant came to the Service Centre of the appellant for repairing the mobile set being Model No. Sansui C32-Black. After Elementary Level Screening, the authorized persons of the appellant detected that handset became hang during operating. Authorised person of the appellant informed the respondent-complainant that the parts for repairing the mobile set is not available in their Service Centre and that he could not send the mobile set to the company for repairing. Thereafter, on the next date, the appellant sent the mobile set to the company as per company’s instruction. After repairing the mobile set, the respondent-complainant was accordingly, informed to take back the mobile set. It has also submitted that after receiving the mobile set again from the complainant, the authorized person of the appellant detected that the touch screen of the mobile set was not working properly, but due to non-availability of the parts, the appellant sent the mobile set to the company and after repairing of the mobile set then and then the appellant informed the respondent-complainant to take back the mobile set, but the complainant refused to take back the mobile set.
5. On the other hand, the respondent-complainant submits that nowhere in the memo of appeal, the appellant disclosed on which date the appellant had informed the respondent-complainant is not mentioned and not only that till date the mobile set was not returned.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the grounds of the appeal. On our query, Miss Roy, Ld. Counsel for the appellant failed to show any documents as to when the complainant-petitioner was informed to take back the repaired mobile. We are also unable to accept the contention made in paragraph-3 of the memo of appeal that on 03.03.2017, the Advocate for the appellant prepared written statement and the petition for vacating the ex parte order, but the District Forum did not accept the petition and also did not allow any further time as it appears from the record of the District Forum that on 03.03.2017, no date was fixed either for order or for filing written statement, rather on 23.02.2017, the Ld. District Forum allowed the appellant-opposite party to file written objection and the date was fixed on 27.02.2017. On 27.02.2017, though the complainant was present, but the opposite party took no step and even no written objection was filed by it. Therefore, according to us, the Ld. District Forum did not commit any wrong proceeding against the opposite party ex parte. Though on 27.02.2017, the Ld. District Forum fixed the case on 10.03.2017 for ex parte evidence, but fact remains that on 10.03.2017, the appellant-opposite party appeared and cross-examined the complainant and also argued the case. After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment. It also appears from the memo of appeal that though the appeal is filed by the opposite party no.3 M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care, but in the appeal, except the complainant, none was made party. On that ground itself also, the appeal is devoid of merit. By this time, it is settled law that the admitted fact need not be proved and in absence of written statement by the opposite parties, the Ld. District Forum rightly decided the case and passed the impugned judgment. As according to the appellant, it has already deposited the mobile set before the District Forum after repairing the same. Thus, the respondent-complainant is at liberty to receive the mobile set from the District Forum.

We also affirm the directions of the Ld. District Forum to the opposite parties Sansui India Ltd. and M/s Surajit’s Mobile Care to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- jointly to the petitioner within a month from today. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, then petitioner will be entitled to get interest over the said amount @9% per annum.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

 

 

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

 

​