OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.67/2017
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana DekaLahkar - Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Bikram Hazarika ….............Complainant
S/O- Late Tara Prasad Hazrika
R/O- Kumarpara,KRC Road,
P.O- Bharalumukh,P.S- Bharalumukh,
Guwahati-781009,
presently as i/c Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Goalpara,
a government service holder
-VS-
1) Managing Director, Sony India Pvt.Ltd (Registered Office) …...................Opp.Party
H.O- A-18, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura, New Delhi-110044
2) Sony India Pvt.Ltd.
Mr Bhaskar Guha,Branch Manager,
1st floor,Monal Tower,Opp. Assam Secretariat
G.S.Road,Dispur,Guwahati-781006
3) Mr Anjan Bhattacharjee
Service Centre Incharge,
Tech Shop, Rajghar main road,
Opp. A.V. Complex,Assam,Guwahati-781003
Appearance:
The complainant Shri Bikram Hazarika himself conducted his case in this forum.
Date of argument - 03.05.2018
Date of judgment - 18.05.2018
Exparte Judgment
This is a proceeding U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1. The complaint filed by Shri Bikram Hazarika ,S/O- Late Tara Prasad Hazarika, R/O- Kumarpara, KRC Road,P.S- Bharalumukh , Guwahati against M.D. Sony India Pvt.Ltd. ,New Delhi,Sony India Pvt.Ltd. ,represented by the Branch Manager, Guwahati Branch,Dispur and Mr Anjan Bhattacharya, Service Centre Incharge, Techshop,Rajghar Main Road,Guwahati was admitted on 25/08/2017 as a proceeding under Sec-12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 and notices were served on all the opp. parties and on 27/10/2017 all the opp. parties were present and thereafter they defaulted to take steps in this proceeding ; and being compelled, this forum vide order dtd.02/02/2018 directed for hearing of the case on exparte and the complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 16/03/2018 and he also filed his exparte argument on 03/05/2018 . On that day we heard oral exparte argument forwarded by the complainant and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
2.The case of the complainant in brief is that , he had purchased one Sony Mobile handset bearing Model No-E6883 from the Sony India Pvt.Ltd online through their website www.flipkart.com on 07/02/2017 for a sum of Rs.34,990/- which he received delivery on 07/02/2017 vide Invoice No-FOYSF00817 -00166461 but he found the mobile handset develop fault for which he attempted to get the defect rectify from the service provider of Sony India Pvt.Ltd. namely Techshop ,Rajghar Main Road,Guwahati (Opp.Party No-3) . But the service centre incharge Shri Anjan Bhattacharya refused to accept his defective mobile for repairing although the mobile was within warranty period, instead a lady officer insisted him to take a refurbished mobile phone on payment of Rs.12,537/- against his repairable mobile phone which was 33% of the price of his mobile phone and said lady officer even insisted him to pay 50% of the MRP of his mobile phone with extension of warranty period and the said offer was valid till 6th August,2017 as said by the lady officer but he refused to accept the offer as his mobile phone was within warranty period. Opp.Party No-3 refused to register his request for repair in front of his colleague Shri Salahuddin Ahmed on 10/06/2017.By that act the authorized service centre acted as infringer and as such he deserve compensation from the opp. parties for such infringer and as such he claim compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- . As he fail to use his mobile phone in his official work as Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in the office of Registrar of Co-Operative Societies,Assam and the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara as well as in the public relation for not repairing by the company and its service centre accordingly he prays for directing the opp. party to replace his said mobile phone with a new one with chain features and to pay him compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
3.We have perused the evidence of the complainant and found that in evidence which is in the form of affidavit he states that , he had purchased one Sony Mobile handset bearing Model No-E6883 from the Sony India Pvt.Ltd online through their website www.flipkart.com on 07/02/2017 for a sum of Rs.34,990/- which he received delivery on 07/02/2017 vide Invoice No-FOYSF00817 -00166461 but he found the mobile handset develop fault for which he attempted to get the defect rectify from the service provider of Sony India Pvt.Ltd. namely Techshop ,Rajghar Main Road,Guwahati (Opp.Party No-3) . But the service centre incharge Shri Anjan Bhattacharya refused to accept his defective mobile for repairing although the mobile was within warranty period, instead, a lady officer insulted him to take a refurbished mobile phone on payment of Rs.12,537/- against his repairable mobile phone which was 33% of the price of his mobile phone and said lady officer even insulted him to pay 50% of the MRP of his mobile phone with extension of warranty period and the said offer was valid till 6th August,2017 as said by the lady officer but he refused to accept the offer as his mobile phone was within warranty period. Opp.Party No-3 refused to register his request for repair in front of his colleague Shri Salahuddin Ahmed on 10/06/2017.By that act the authorized service centre acted as infringer and as such he deserve compensation from the opp. parties for such infringer and as such he claim compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- . As he fail to use his mobile phone in his official work as Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies in the office of Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Assam and the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara as well as in the public relation for not repairing by the company and its service centre.
We have perused the document filed by him and found that Exhibit-1which is retail / tax invoice bill of purchasing the mobile handset bearing Model No- E-6883 ,Sony India Pvt.Ltd.and Ext-2 which is Invoice No- FOYSF00817-00166461 support the evidence of the complainant as to purchase of a mobile handset Model No-E 6883 manufactured by Sony India Pvt.Ltd.on online through their website www.flipkart.com on 07/02/2017 for a price of Rs.34,990/- . Thus it is clearly established that on 07/02/2017 the complainant purchased 1 (one) mobile handset bearing Model No-E-6883 , Sony India Pvt.Ltd. directly from the said company on online through their website www.flipkart.com at a price of Rs.34,990/-.
4.After perusing Exhibit-3 , which is warranty card of the said mobile phone, we have found that, the warranty period of the said mobile handset is one year from the original date of purchase of the handset. It is found that the said handset was purchased by complainant on 07/02/2017 and so warranty period will end on 06/02/2018. According to the complainant the said handset develop fault just after few days of purchasing it and when he found the defect he visited the service centre of Opp.Party No-1 namely Techshop, Rajghar main road, Guwahati (Opp.Party No-3) and requested them to repair the handset free of cost but they , instead of taking the handset from him for repairing asked him to purchase a mobile handset on payment of Rs.12,537/- only against his handset of which value is 33% of his handset and one lady officer of that service centre insisted him for paying 50% of his handset saying that the offer is valid upto 06/08/2017 but he refused to accept this offer and insisted for repairing of his handset and inspite of that on 10/06/2017 they refuse to register his request to repair his mobile handset. This statement of complainant is believable and reliable having he states those things on oath before the Notary Public and the opp. party side has not taken any step to his said statement although once they had appeared in this proceeding. Therefore we hold that , Opp.Party No-3 who is the authorized service centre of Opp.Party No-1 willfully refused to repair the handset of the complainant which he has found defective after few days of its purchase and even they refuse to register the complainant’s request for repairing rather insisted him to pay 50% of price of the said defective handset. We have inspected material Exhibit-1 which is the concerned handset and found that it is a defective handset. We also found that the defect was detected within warranty period. Therefore the manufacturer , seller as well as the authorized service centre (Opp.Party No-1, Opp.Party No-2 and Opp.Party No-3) are legally bound either to repair the said handset free of cost or to replace it with a new one.
The very act of refusing to repair the said handset and refusal of registering the request of repair by the Opp.Party No-3 infers that the very handset is defective one and the said defect is manufacturing defect. So, the said handset is not repairable . Therefore , we are of opinion that, the opp. parties are liable to replace the very handset with a new handset of same model and features. But neither the manufacturer / seller and their authorizedservice centre took step for repairing the said handset or replacing the said handset inspite of repeated request of the complainant till July , 10 , 2017 . So,that acts on the part of the opp. parties amount to deficiency of service towards the complainant and a clear case of unfair trade practice. So, the complainant is entitled to get his mobile handset replaced with a new one of same model and same features. As the opp. parties refused to replace the said defective handset with a new one , therefore , they are liable to refund price of the said handset i.e. Rs.37,999/- with interest @12% per annum to the complainant.
5.The complainant is a government officer holding the post of Asst. Registrar of Co-Operative who is always busy in official works in his department and in public relation within his jurisdiction , where a mobile phone is a must. So, we have found that his statement as to that for the said defective handset his official work in the office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies , the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara as well as in public relation got hampered and he also suffered mental agony for that, is believable. So we hold for not repairing the said handset or not replacing it with a new one, the opp. parties caused hamper in the official work of complainant and thereby they also caused mental suffering to him.So, for such causing hamper in official work of the complainant and causing mental sufferings to him, as per our view, he is entitled to get atleast Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
It is also found that for no fault of him he has to prosecute the opp. party before this forum by spending his money and time. As such he is entitled to get at least Rs.10,000/- as a cost of the proceeding.
6.Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that , the complainant has a prima facie case against the opp. parties and has also succeeded to prove his case against them . Therefore, the complaint against all the opp. parties is allowed on exparte with a direction to them to pay the value of the concerned handset i.e. R.37,999/- with interest @12% per annum from this day to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for hampering his official works and causing mental suffering to him as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceeding , to which, all the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable . It is further directed that, they are to pay the awarded amounts within 45 days , in default, other two amounts shall carry interest at the same rate and that on payment of awarded amount they will be entitled to get the defective mobile back from the complainant.
Given under our hands and seal today on this 18th May,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
