Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/108

Er. Subhra Deb, JE IT, Tripura Industrial Development Corporation Limited. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, TV 18 Home Shopping Network Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Saha.

28 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  108 of 2014

Er. Subrata Deb(JE-IT),
S/O- Sri Harendra Deb,
Tripura Industrial Development Corporation Limited.,
A Govt. of Tripura Undertaking, 
Kunjaban, Near Ginger Hotel, 
Agartala, West Tripura- 799006.        .............Complainant.
    
         ______VERSUS______

1. TV 18 Home Shopping Network Ltd., 
# 26/27, East Wing, 8th Floor, 
Raheja Towers, M.G. Road,
Bangalore- 560001. 

2. S Mobility Ltd.,
S Global Knowledge Park, 
19 A & 19 B, Sector-125, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh, India- 201301.    ...........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.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant    : Complainant in person.
                                                         
For the O.P. No.1        : Mr. Abheek Saha,
                  Mr. Kajal Nandi and 
                  Smt. Sumi Datta,
                  Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 2        : None appeared.

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  28.12.15

J U D G M E N T

        This  case arose on the basis of complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, petitioner being purchasing of a mobile from the Opposite Party No.1, Home Shopping Network complained about the illegal trade practice by the 2 opposite parties seller and manufacturer. Complainant made communication with O.P. No.1, Home Shopping Network through website and given order for supply of mobile telephone. It was sent by courier service. The product covered one year warranty. O.P. no.1 received the payment through courier Blue Dart and delivered product. Rs.3999/- was paid by the petitioner. But the product was defective and was not working on the first day. So, the complainant informed O.P. No.1, Home Shopping Network. Petitioner believed in the assurance and genuiness of the product through advertisement and placed the order but he was deceived so he made complaint wanting to get replacement or return of money which was given. 
    
2.        O.P. No.1, Home Shopping Network appeared by filing written objection stating that there was no fault, imperfection, short coming of the product. They informed the petitioner to go to the service centre for repairing. There was no discrepancy or deficiency in service. Opposite party is just a promoter of the product. The  manufacturer of the product, O.P. No.2 is to take step to remove the manufacturing defect if any. 
3.        The O.P. No.2, Mobility Ltd. did not appear after receipt of notice.

4.        On the basis of rival contention we shall decide the merit of the claim. We shall decide whether there was illegal trade practice and petitioner is therefore, entitled to get compensation. Our findings will be limited on this above subjects.

        FINDINGS:-

5.        It is admitted that the petitioner purchased the mobile telephone for Rs.3999/-. The order was given through internet. It is also admitted that the product was supplied. The technical defect or fault could not be understood by the petitioner. But the bare fact is that the telephone was not working from the very beginning. It is admitted that the mobile telephone covers one year warranty period. Within this warranty period the product is to be replaced or price should be given back on return of product. 

6.        Petitioner has given evidence in this case produced invoice, and the examination in chief. 

7.        It is stated that the charger not working and charge could not be given. O.P. No.1 provided a address at Krishnanagar on Agartala for repairing but no service centre of the product was found at Agartala. Again and again time given by O.P. No.1, Home Shop Network but service centre was not available. He then sent E-mail to the O.P. No.1 but no response was given. The consumer is not aware of the manufacturing defect but the O.P. No.1 who is performing the business raised about the fact of manufacturing defect. The manufacturing defect is not proved before us. It is admitted that advertisement for sale of this product was given by O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 falsely represents that the goods are of particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition style or model. Falsely represents that services are of particular standard quality or grade gives to the public and warranty or guaranty or performance efficacy for a length of life of the product. When the opposite party raised any question about the testing of the product then burden of poof is on them not the complainant. Therefore, in this case it is clear that the O.P. No.1 who was doing business with this product falsely represents that the product, mobile phone was of particular standard, quality and also represents that service are of particular standard quality or grade. It makes a false misleading representation. Also giving a warranty or guaranty of the product, promise to maintain or repair  the article. But actually no service centre is available at Agartala. There is no responsible prospect to carry on the warranty, guaranty or promise. So the act of the O.P. No.1, Home Shopping Network Ltd. is definitely a illegal trade practice. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get compensation replacement of the mobile telephone by a genuine product. 

8.        We have decided that petitioner will get compensation amounting to Rs.15000/- for the deficiency of service for illegal trade practice by the O.P. No.1, Home shopping Network. Petitioner is also entitled to get back the genuine mobile telephone for the amount paid Rs.3999/-. Direct Home shopping Network  to take back the defective product from the petitioner and replace it by genuine one and also pay Rs.15000/- for deficiency of service and harassment to the petitioner within one month from the date of this order otherwise it will carry interest @8% P.A. over the awarded amount. 

9.        Supply copy of judgment to the petitioner and also supply one copy to O.P. No.1, Home shopping Network.  
        
10.                  A N N O U N C E D

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.