Tripura

West Tripura

CC/51/2015

Mr. Sukanta Laskar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surajit Mobile Care & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  51 of 2015

Sri Sukanta Laskar,
S/O- Sri Santosh Laskar,
Madhya Badharghat(Srinagar),
Agartala, Tripura(West).          .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

Surajit's Mobile Care,
1st Floor, Melarmath, H.G.B. Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.

Sarala Electronics,
160, H.G.B. Road, 
Melarmath, Agartala, 
West Tripura.

GIONEE,
Teleservices Limited,  
209, Garofaunited Main Road,
P.O.- Haitu, Kasba, 
Kolkata-700078.            ...........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : The Complainant in person.
                                               
For the Opposite Parties    : None appeared.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  28.11.15

J U D G M E N T

           This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Sukanta Laskar of Madhya Badharghat, Agartala, Tripura West, against the O.Ps, namely Surajit's Mobile Care, Melarmath, Agartala, West Tripura and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant purchased one GIONEE M2-A mobile set from the O.P. No.2, Sarala Electronics, Melarmath, Agartala at Rs.11,100/- on 11th October, 2014. On 10th April 2015 it was detected that the mobile set had not been getting changed. Immediately he made contact with the seller of the mobile set who advised him to place the mobile set with Surajit's Mobile Care, Melarmath, Agartala, the authorized service centre of the company, for rectification of the defect. Accordingly, he met the service engineer of the O.P. No.1 who asked him to leave the mobile set with them for removal of the defect. After 3 days he again met the O.P. No.1 to take delivery of the set when he was shocked to see that the mobile set in question returned to him in dead condition. They also demanded Rs.4500/- from him being the repairing charge though, as per terms of warranty, they were bound to repair the mobile set free of cost during the period of warranty.  According to the complainant, the conduct of the O.P. No.1 constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service.

3.        None of the O.Ps recorded appearance despite receipt of notices. Hence, the case has been proceeded exparte against them by orders dated 10.08.15 and 25.08.15. 

4.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1- Money receipt dated 11.10.14,
    Exhibit 2- Job Card.
        Findings:
5.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
        
6.        We have already heard argument advanced by the complainant in person. Also perused the pleading, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.
        
7.        On perusal of the Exhibit-1, Money receipt dated 11.10.14 we have no doubt in our mind that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.2 at Rs.11,100/- on 11.10.14. From the pleading and evidence of the complainant it has come out that after a few months of purchase the mobile set was not getting charged. Accordingly, he placed the mobile set with the O.P. No.1, the authorized service centre of the company, for rectification of defect. It is seen from the evidence of the complainant that the O.P. no.1 demanded Rs.4,500/- being the repairing charges of the mobile set. As per terms of warranty, the authorized service centre of the company(O.P. No.1)is bound to cure the defect of the mobile set free of cost within the period of warranty. In the present case, the O.P. No.1 by demanding Rs.4,500/- from the complainant towards repairing charge of the mobile set during the period of warranty violated the terms of warranty which, in our opinion, is nothing but a unfair trade practice. We do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. Since the O.Ps chose not to contest the case, the evidence adduced by the complainant has remained unrebutted and unshaken. From the evidence of the complainant we are satisfied that the mobile  set purchased by the complainant from O.P. No.2 became defective during the period of warranty. So as per terms of warranty, the O.P. No.1 being the authorized service centre of the company was bound to repair the mobile set free of cost with fullest satisfaction of the complainant. It is needless to say that by not doing so the O.P. No.1 adopted unfair trade practice and, therefore, the complainant is liable to be compensated by him only. 

8.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed exparte. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the defective mobile set  with a new one of the same model or refund Rs. 11,100/- (Rupees eleven thousand and one hundred) as the price of the mobile set to the complainant  within 45 day from today. The O.P. No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to him with Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand) as cost of litigation. In case of failure in making the aforesaid payment within the prescribed time, the amount payable will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.    
   
9.                  A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.