DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 10 of 2023

 

Sri Kallol Dey,

S/O-Sri Kajal Kumar Dey,

R/O- 19/2582, Ward No. 19, L.N. Bari Road,

Near Ram Thakur Ashram, Banamalipur,

Sadar, P.S. East Agartala, Agartala,

West Tripura, Tripura- 799001.

 

Proprietor of-

X-FIT GYMNASIUM

Banamalipur, Laxmi Narayan Bari Road,

Agartala, Tripura(W), Pin- 799001. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Opposite Party : Exparte.

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R  

1. Sri Kallol Dey(here-in-after called as “the Complainant”) has filed this complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service on the pleading that on advance payment of Rs.63,384/- on 13.06.2022 purchased one Elliptical Cross Trainer on condition to pay the rest amount of Rs.11,616/-. In the first week of July the complainant received the product on payment of Rs.9500/- and Rs. 1500/- for logistical expenses and transportation cost respectively.

1.1 After installation of the product defect was detected in the product which was communicated to the respondent on 08.07.2022 to which the respondent  intimated the complainant that there was defect in the battery and the battery was replaced by the respondent. But till date the machine was not found functioning. Hence, as per direction of the respondent the complainant sent the mother board.

1.2 The respondent initially promised to rectify the mother board within 40 days and that extended such period for another 40 days but did not repair the machine which caused huge inconvenience in running the business of the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

 

2. Summon was issued upon the respondent but respondent has not appeared. Hence, vide order dated  06.04.2023 the case has been proceeding exparte against the respondent as the complainant has submitted the postal receipt which raises genuine presumption that summon has been delivered upon the respondent.

 

3. The complainant has submitted tax invoice showing purchase of the machine, Whatsapp application conversation by which the respondent was informed the  defect, printed copy of tax invoice, receipt of the professional Services showing the items were delivered to the respondent for repairing.

3.1 The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit.

4. The respondent at no stage of the proceeding appeared. As such hearing argument the following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

5. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

5.1 The complainant by pleading evidence and documents has substantiated the case that he purchased the machine from the O.P and the O.P. delivered a defective machine and later on replaced the battery and also took delivery of the mother board of the machine for repairing but ultimately has not responded  for which the complainant had to suffer a lot in running his business. There is nothing that the complainant did not purchase the machine for his self employment in his business establishment. As such the complainant is Consumer within the definition of Section- 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5.2 The respondent inspite of receiving summon has not appeared before this Commission and in fact has not done anything to replace the mother board and repair the machine of the complainant. As such the respondent has admitted the case of he complainant. This amounts to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(47) as the respondent has adopted deceptive practice. The definition of unfair trade practice given in the Section- 2(47) of the Act is inclusive definition. As such this deceptive practice by the respondent is deficiency in service as the complainant purchased the product from the respondent which was defective in nature and the respondent is/ was duty bound either to replace the machine or cure the defect.

6. Both the points are decided accordingly.

7. In the result, it is ordered that the respondent shall refund the amount of Rs.75,000/- being the price of the Elliptical Gross Trainer(product) to the complainant. The respondent shall also pay another sum of compensation of Rs.1 Lac to the complainant, inclusive all other cost which the complainant had to bear, within a period of 2 months, otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% after the expiry of 2 months till the date of actual payment.  

8. The case stands disposed of. Supply a copy of this Final Order to the complainant and the complainant on his own shall take the initiative to send the copy of this Final Order to the O.P.

 

 Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA