DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _341_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : _27.7.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:13/06/2017
Present : President :
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sachin Kumar Gupta, also known as Sachin Gupta,son of Gopal Kumar Gupta.
2. Gopal Kumar Gupta, son of late Lacchu Gupta,
Both residing at 23/1, Bonomali Naskar Road, P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata – 60.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : V.R Communication, 39, Diamond Harbour Road, Shekher Bazar, P.S Thakurpukur, Kolkata -700 008.
______________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainants contending deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in rendering necessary service towards the Complainants by the Opposite Parties.
In diminutive, the case of the Complainants, is that, the Complainants had purchased one Tab named I ball tab slide 1026 3G 918 IMEI NO 911389900127957 from the O.P V.R. Communication on 19.04.2015. After using the said Tab within one and half month from the date of purchase, it was become defective. Immediately the complainants informed the OP. and after scrutiny of the said Tab the O.P refused to repair the said Tab.
Having no other alternative, the complainants filed this instant complaint for getting relief prayed for.
Issued notice upon the O.P.
Resisting the complaint the O.Ps filed written version denying contentions and all material allegations, made by the complainants in the petition of complaint .
In written version the O.P stated that one I Ball Tab slide 1026 3G 918 IMEI NO 911389900127957 was purchased by the complainant from the O.P.
In written version the O.P also stated that after using one and half month from the date of purchase the said Tab became defective and the complainants informed the O.P and the OP. M/S V.R. Communication suggested the complainants to send the said Tab to the service centre. Accordingly as per advise of the O.P the complainant went to the service centre on 15.06.2015 and the service centre detected the problem of the said Tab and found that the damage was physical damage which is beyond the warranty coverage and accordingly gave an estimate to the complainant of Rs.5,500/-,but after receiving the estimate the complainants were shocked and aggressive and forced to return back the money from the O.P.
In written version the O.P also stated that he is neither a manufacturer nor a CNF, a reseller ,so it could not able to return back the money.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
At the time of argument the complainants and O.P filed affidavit- in-chief, Questionnaries, BNA and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
All points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
In coming in to conclusion regarding the present dispute we have gone through the complaint, written version and affidavit-in –chief filed by the Ld. Advocate of the complainants and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P and also critically appreciated the material documents on record and we have gathered that admittedly the complainant has purchased one I Ball from the O.P and fact remains that it has become defective after one and half months from the date of purchase. The complainants lodged complain before the O.P V.R Communication and the O.P referred the defective I Ball to the service centre for repair who charged Rs.5,500/-.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the record, it is evident that the complainants did not deny the statements of the O.P regarding checking of the I Ball Tab by the service centre and an estimated cost for repairing of Rs.5,500/-. The complainant also did not deny the allegation of physical damage of charging point which beyond the warranty coverage.
The record reveals that the complainants suppressed such facts before this Forum and did not approach with clean hand. The complainants did not add or implicate the service centre and the manufacturer of I Ball Tab as necessary parties to this complaint. In absence of manufacturer and service centre it will difficult to ascertain whether the I Ball Tab is suffered with any manufacturing defect or defect occurred due to external physical damage.
Accordingly, in light of the above analysis, we are of the view that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case liberty is given to the complainants to file complaint afresh after adding manufacturer and service centre as necessary parties.
Hence,
It is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest for non joinder of necessary parties.
Liberty is given to the complainants to file complaint afresh after adding manufacturer and service centre as necessary parties.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The Judgment in separate sheet is ready and delivered in open Forum, as it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest for non joinder of necessary parties.
Liberty is given to the complainants to file complaint afresh after adding manufacturer and service centre as necessary parties.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member
