DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 08 of 2019

 

Shri Nabakumar Das,

S/O. Sri Narayan Ch. Das,

Kamalghat Opposite of ICFAI University,

Mohanpur, Tripura,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799210.…...........................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

 

The Proprietor of M/S Laxmi Telecom, 

22 Office Lane, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura,

Pin-799001.................................................................................................. Opposite party.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

 

 

For the O.P.  : Sri Ashim Das,

  Advocate.  

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  07/01/2020

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Shri Nabakumar Das, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.P.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant  purchased one mobile set LENOVO K6 POWER MODEL No.K33a42 having 32 GB ROM & 4 GB RAM facilities from the O.P. on 04/06/2017 for an amount Rs.10,998.40. After using the mobile set for nearly about 11 months the Complainant found sound problem(speaker issue) in his mobile set and he accordingly on 31/05/2018 went to the Shop of the O.P. and requested the O.P. to repair his mobile set. The set was handed over to the O.P. The O.P. promised him to return the set after repair within 7 days but the O.P. did not keep his promise. He returned the set after 29 days although by this time the Complainant visited his shop 3 days. The Complainant alleged in his complaint that after 1 to 2 weeks he dedicated that the RAM in his mobile set had been changed from 4 GB to 3 GB RAM. He immediately contacted the O.P. over phone. The O.P. asked him to come to his service centre. The Complainant went to the service centre of the O.P. The O.P. then requested the Complainant to leave the mobile set with him at least for one week for sorting out of the problem. The Complainant did not agree with the proposal of the O.P. He told the O.P. that he will give the mobile set after purchasing new mobile set as he did not have substitute mobile with him. The Complainant after purchasing a new mobile set again visited the service centre on 16/11/2018 and handover the set to the O.P. for repair. The O.P. told him that within 7 to 10 days he will deliver the mobile set to him. This time also the O.P. did not keep his promise and could not return the set taking the plea that the mother board of the set had not arrived. The Complainant has further stated in his complaint that on several dates he visited the service centre but the O.P. had failed to return the set. Thereafter he again went to the service centre of the O.P. and the O.P. then told him he would give him one new mobile set on 07/01/2019 having price of Rs.12,999/-. But on 07/01/2019 although the Complainant visited the service centre but the O.P. neither handed him over the old mobile set nor the new one. The Complainant then stated to the O.P. that he would come to the service centre of the O.P. for taking back his old mobile set after it got repaired, if the O.P. was ready to pay him the expenses he had incurred for transportation from Kailashahar to the shop of the O.P. on several dates from 31/05/2018 to 07/01/2019 including the expenses made by the Complainant for food etc. The Complainant has further stated in his complaint that on 8th January, one employee of the O.P. contacted him over phone and requested him to visit the service centre of the O.P. for taking delivery of the mobile set. The Complainant replied to him that he would not go to the service centre and requested to send one representative of the O.P. on 11/01/2019 for delivering the mobile set to him. But till 27/01/2019 no one from the O.P. side contacted him. It was only on 28/01/2019 one representative of the O.P. called the Complainant over phone in order to inform  him that one employe of the O.P. would be sent to the Complainant on 02/02/2019. But nobody came and contacted with the Complainant till filling of this Complaint. The complainant also stated that his mobile set is still lying in possession of the O.P.      

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P., the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming Rs.20,278/-  as compensation which includes price of the mobile set of Rs.10,998/- which was given for repairing to the O.P., traveling and food expenses, Rs.5,000/- for causing mental agony, Rs.4,280/- being the cost of new mobile set for being used as substitute mobile set etc.  

Hence this case.

 

2. In due course of time notice was duly sent to the O.P. from the Forum. The O.P. has appeared and filed W.O. denying the contentions and claim of the Complainant.  

            The O.P. has admitted that the Complainant on 31/05/2018 visited his shop with a complain of speaker / ringer problem in his mobile set. According to the O.P. the problem was rectified and it was delivered to the Complainant on 07/04/2018. It is also stated by the O.P. in his W.O. that on 16/11/2018 i.e. after 7 months of the delivery of the mobile set after repair,  the Complainant again visited his shop with another complain that the RAM in his mobile set had been changed to 3 GB RAM  from 4 GB RAM. As desired by the Complainant and for meeting of the problem the O.P. had asked for some time and also cost for rectifying the problem. But the Complainant refused to pay any amount for it. The O.P. told the Complainant that if the RAM of the mobile set would have been reduced to 3 GB RAM from 4 GB RAM due to the fault of the O.P. then how the Complainant had used the mobile set for last 7 months and that had it been so he might have taken up the matter with the O.P. at the earliest. The O.P. further stated in his written objection that having found that the Complainant is a student, the O.P. has agreed to repair the mobile set by way of good gesture. The mobile set was accordingly set at right and thereafter on 07/01/2019 the Complainant had been informed by the O.P. over his mobile no.9436908469 to take delivery of the mobile set from the O.P. The Complainant however did not agree to come to the shop of the O.P. He requested the O.P. to send one of his employees to the College(ICFAI University) of the complainant for delivering the mobile set. The O.P. accordingly on 08/01/2019 sent his employee Sri Rajen Kairy(OPW-2) for delivering the mobile set to the Complainant in his College. But Sri Kairy could not deliver it though he after reaching at the College(ICFAI University), he tried to contact the Complainant in his mobile No.9436908469 many times. The complainant neither responded to the calls nor did he come to  receive the mobile set from him. Thereafter the O.P. on several times tried to  contact with the Complainant over his mobile phone but the Complainant did not respond to the calls. After few days the Complainant however contacted with the O.P. over phone and told him that if the O.P. gives him new mobile set replacing the old one he will not file any case against the O.P. and that if the O.P. does not favour him with a new mobile set he will file a case against the O.P. It is admitted by the complainant that the old mobile set which was ready for delivery on 07/01/2019 is lying in his custody.           

  Denying any sort of deficiency of service on his part towards the Complainant, the O.P. has prayed for rejecting the complaint with costs.  

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

 

 

3. The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 03 documents. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. The complainant was cross examined by the O.P. side.

  From the side of the O.P.  two witnesses namely Sri Debabrata Das, the O.P. himself(OPW-1) and Sri Rajen Kairy, Employee of the O.P.(OPW-2) were examined. The said witnesses were also cross examined by the Complainant side. On behalf of the O.P. one document and the mobile set of the Complainant given for repair were produced. The document has been marked as Exhibit -A and the mobile set as M.O.-1.

 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

  (i) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.P towards the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?           

 

 

5. DECISION   AND  REASONS  FOR  DECISIONS:- 

      We have heard arguments from the side of the Complainant. 

The O.P.'s Counsel did not take part in argument though he had been given opportunities. 

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides. 

It is evident from the case record that the Complainant purchased one mobile set LENOVO K6 POWER MODEL No.K33a42 having 32 GB ROM & 4 GB RAM facilities from the O.P. on 04/06/2017 for an amount Rs.10,998.40 and that after 11 months of its use it started to give sound  problem. The complainant approached the O.P. on 31/05/2018 for repair of it. The O.P. after repairing the same handed over the set to the Complainant. The Complainant thereafter again visited the shop of the O.P. on 16/11/2018 with the complain that the RAM in his mobile set has been changed from 4 GB to 3 GB RAM. The O.P. while disputing  such allegation of the Complainant had agreed to repair the mobile set. The mobile set was set at right and was ready for delivery on 07/01/2019. The Complainant was duly informed about it and he was asked to take delivery of it from the O.P. The Complainant was however reluctant to come and take delivery of it from the shop and that as per his request the O.P. sent his representative i.e. the O.P.W. No.2, Sri Rajen Kairy to the University of the Complainant for handing over the mobile set to the Complainant. But Sri Kairy has failed to handover the set to the Complainant though he after reaching at the ICFAI University(the Complainant is a student of the said University) could not get the Complainant even after making calls to the mobile no. of the Complainant several times. From the evidence of the O.P. side it reveals that subsequently the Complainant contacted the O.P. over phone and demanded a new mobile set in lieu of the mobile set which was given to the O.P. for repair and that if his demand is not fulfilled he will file a case against the O.P. According to the O.P. the mobile set which was given by the Complainant was duly repaired and was ready for delivery in time but the complainant with oblique motive and in an unjust manner has refused to take delivery of the mobile set even though he was duly informed about it.  

On close scrutiny of evidence adduced by the Complainant and the O.P. side we are satisfied that the mobile set which was given for repair by the Complainant lastly on 16/11/2018 was duly attended to by the O.P. and it was ready for delivery to the Complainant in time on 07/01/2019 but it was due to the uncalled for and baseless demand raised by the Complainant, and also due to the reluctance of the Complainant the mobile set could not be delivered to him. 

We find that the O.P.'s case appears to us more probable than that of the Complainant. The complainant according to us without any valid reason has refused to take delivery of his mobile set. The O.P. on the other hand had seriously tried to deliver the mobile set to the Complainant after repairing the set. The Complainant according to us without any justifiable ground refused to take delivery of the mobile set from the O.P. Finding no other alternative the O.P. deposited the mobile set in the Forum on 04/09/2019. The O.P. according to us has discharged his liability towards the Complainant concerning the mobile set of the Complainant. 

 

 

6. In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.P. according to us can not be held liable for any sort of deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

In the result, the Complaint filed by the Complainant Sri Nabha Kumar Das is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to give any costs.  

Before parting ourselves from the case record, we direct the Complainant to take back his mobile set from this District Forum after the expiry of the appeal period. 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  BAMDEB  MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI  UMESH  DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA