DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO:  CC – 133  of   2017

 

Sri Swapan Miah,

S/O- Late Khelu Miah,

South Ramnagar,

Agartala, P.O. Ramnagar,

P.S. West Agartala-799002,

West Tripura. ….........…...Complainant.

 

 

         -VERSUS-

 

      The Proprietor,

Surya Kumar Banik Agency Pvt. Ltd., 

World of Titan, 4 Mantri Bari Road, Agartala,

P.O. Agartala Head Post Office,

P.S. West Agartala -799 001,

West Tripura. ............ Opposite Party.

 

 

 

__________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.

 

 

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Surajit Chaudhuri,

  Advocate.   

 

For the O.P. : Suman Deb, 

  Authorized Representative 

  of the OP.

  

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  03.04.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Swapan Miah U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petition's case in short is that he purchased Titan Watch from the shop of the O.P.  at Mantribari Road, Agartala. On 28.06.17 complainant went to the shop of the O.P. for replacement of the battery of the watch. Price of battery was Rs.131/-. But service charge was taken Rs.192/-. Total Rs.323/- was charged and petitioner had to pay it. But after replacement of the battery again the watch stopped. O.P. refused to repair it free of cost though it was within the guarantee period. O.P. informed that as the price of the watch was above Rs.10,000/- so no free service available. One part costing Rs.10/- was only fixed in the watch. But labour charge for that was taken Rs.487/- and GST Rs.7.81/-. Petitioner objected to such exorbitant claim but without any result. But after this repair the watch again stopped functioning. Petitioner had to visit the shop 6 times. Then he sent Advocate's Notice. After that the watch was sent to the Titan Company for complete service. But inspite of that the watch was not repaired. Petitioner suffered a lot because of the deficiency of service of O.P. Claimed the replacement of the watch by a new one of similar model and also compensation.

 

2. O.P. appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that the O.P. addressed each and every complaint. The watch was sent to the manufacturer for complete solution of problem. Watch was working condition at the time of delivery. But after delivery it was not working. The watch was not submitted for replacement so O.P. have no deficiency of service.

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

(I) Whether the O.P. charged and taken higher repairing charges for repairing the defective watch?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a new watch of the same model on replacement and also entitled to get compensation?

4. Petitioner, Swapan Miah produced the Legal Notice, Reply to the Legal Notice, Tax invoice, Letter sent to O.P. as Annexure- 4. 

5. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., Swapan Miah. 

6. O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, Sri Suman Deb.

7. On the basis of all these evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:

8. It is admitted fact that petitioner purchased the Titan watch from the shop of O.P., the only Showroom of Titan watch in Agartala. It is also admitted fact that complainant firstly went to the shop O.P. and replaced the battery. The price of battery was Rs.131/- but for fixing it Rs.192/- was taken as charges. It is also admitted position that for fixing one part cost Rs.10/- O.P.  charged total Rs.585/- with GST and it was taken. The tax invoice produced by the petitioner vide Annexure- 3 proved this fact. 

9. Petitioner in his evidence stated that free service was not provided within the guarantee period as the price of the watch was above Rs.10,000/-. He also stated that he had to go to the shop of O.P. 6 times but every time mechanic of the O.P. failed to repair the watch. The action and behavior of the of the O.P. was not at all consumer friendly. After issuing notice O.P. apologized  and asked the petitioner to produce the watch for complete service solution. Accordingly it was produced before the O.P. shop. But after complete service also the watch was not working. Matter was informed to O.P. on 01.11.17. So for about 5 months petitioner had to wait for the repairing but ultimately the watch was not repaired  by O.P.  O.P. also failed to replace it within 5 months.

 

10. O.P.W. 1, Suman Deb, in his cross examination  admitted that they charge Rs.585/- for repairing. But after that watch was not working. So they sent the watch to the company for changing all parts but watch was not working. They are ready to replace the watch by new watch of same model. He again stated that they received the legal notice earlier but did not assure replacement. The witness agreed to replace the watch by new one of same model and of same price before the Consumer Court but earlier he did not agree for replacement of the watch.

 

11. From the careful scrutiny of the evidence of record it is found that for replacement of battery huge amount was charged. For fixing one part cost Rs.10/-, Rs.585/- was taken. This is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by O.P. Petitioner had to visit the shop of O.P. 6 times for repairing and replacement. But his demand was not fulfilled. As a result petitioner suffered. He is therefore, entitled to get compensation for this unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of O.P. We therefore, direct the O.P. to replace the watch by a new one of same model, same price. Petitioner is to hand over the defective watch before the shop of O.P. and O.P. is to replace it by new one. O.P. also has to return  the battery charges Rs.323/- and also Rs.585/- total Rs.908/- which was taken up without giving service. O.P. also will have to pay Rs.6,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- for cost of litigation. Total Rs.9,908/- as compensation and litigation cost and also charges taken earlier illegally. O.P. also is to replace the Titan watch by a new one of same model of same price. Points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings over the points this case is decided. We direct the O.P. to pay total Rs.9,908/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eight) as compensation & litigation cost and the charges taken and also replace the Titan watch with a new one of same model same price. Direction is to be followed within one month if not followed the amount of compensation will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

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