DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 125  of   2017

 

 

Dr. Sipra Ray,

D/O- Late Sushil Chandra Ray,

Kumari Tilla, Qrt. Type No. 21, 

Kumari Tilla, P.O. Kunjaban, 

Pin- 799 006, West Tripura. …..........…...Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Manager, Himani Agency Private Ltd.(Tanishq),

Mantribari Road, P.O. Agartala, Pin- 799001,

District- West Tripura.

 

2. The Manager, Tanishq Customer Care,

Titan Company Ltd.,

P.O. Box- No. 1721, Bangalore,

Karnataka, India. ............. 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.

 

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sunit Sarkar, 

  Authorized representative 

  of the complainant.   

 

For the O.Ps : Goutam Bhaumik,

  Authorized representative 

  of the O.P.

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 24.04.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

  

This case arises on the petition filed by one Sipra Ray U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Fact of the case in short is that on 29.04.2017 she purchased one set of bangle from the respondent, Himani Agency Pvt. Ltd. on payment of Rs. 96,178/-. but after one week the bangles became fade. So she requested the O.P. to replace the ornaments. She was asked by the O.P. No.1, Manager, Himani Agency to communicate with the customer care at Bangalore. Accordingly she sent a registered letter to the customer care. She made many correspondence and also Email. She was asked to deposit the ornaments in the nearest Tanishq Showroom. However, she did not deposit it. As the respondent failed to do their proper service by replacement so she filed this case for refund price of the bangles Rs. 96,178/- and Rs.1 lacs as compensation.

 

2. O.P. No.2, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that in case of own damage detected bangles shall be repaired free of cost. But the complainant insisted for replacement. O.P. requested her to deposit the bangles at the nearest Tanishq Showroom so that  the same could undergo a quality cheque in the factory. The matter was also communicated to her by Email. But she refused to deposit the same. O.P. No.2 could provide suitable solution within 10 days if she deposited the bangles. But she did not deposit and filed this case without any cause. 

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the O.P. failed to provide proper service to the petitioner?

(II) Whether there is deficiency of service by O.P. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced cash memo, copy of Emails, authority letter. 

 

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the letters, duplicate invoice made, certificate of authority and also examined one witness, Sharon Khurana.

 

6. One Sunit Sarkar was authorized for conducting the case. However, Sunit Sarkar did not give any evidence.

 

Findings and decision:

 

7. We have gone through the invoice, letters given by the petitioner to customer care, correspondence, letter of authorization and also the certificate authenticity Annexure- A of the O.P. This is very relevant. In this certificate of authenticity it is written that ''Limited one year warranty'' is given. It is written that the item will be repaired and if repairing not possible then the item will be exchanged. O.P. assured for repairing. But petitioner did not agree.

 

8. We have gone through the correspondence made by the Himani Agency Pvt. Ltd. by the letters Annexure- B on 11.12.17. The company requested Sipra Ray to deposit the bangles to send it for quality check and assessment of damage. It is to be repaired free of cost. But the complainant did not accept the request. She did not deposit the bangles for repairing or replacement. Unless it is examined by the expert the damage can not be ascertained. But the petitioner herself came to the final conclusion that mina ornament colour were removed from the bangles. Unless it is shown to the seller of the company finally how it can be ascertained that the mina colour was removed from the bangles. She insisted for replacement without depositing the bangles. The Tanishq Showroom or Himani agency was in helpless position.

 

9. In the Statement on affidavit, Sharon Khurana stated that the representative of the Tanishq could not replace the bangles without verification of damage and quality checkup.  Therefore, requested her to deposit the bangles. But complainant refused to deposit the bangles for quality check. He assured her for repairing free of cost.

 

10. As per terms and conditions the quality and the alleged damage is to ascertained first and thereafter only decision will be taken for repairing or replacement. Petitioner insisted for replacement without depositing which is impossible. As such O.P. have no deficiency of service and no unfair trade practice. Petitioner did not appear to support her own case and failed to establish the allegation. Both the points are decided against her. 

 

11. In view of above findings the prayer  of the petitioner failed and case is dismissed without any cost. Supply copy free of cost.

 

   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