DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 82 of 2018

 

   Sri Arghya Banik 

   Netaji Subhash Road, 

   Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala,

   West Tripura-  799001. ............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. M/S Surajit's Mobile Care,

   Ronaldsay Road, Near Hotel Sonartari,

   Agartala, West Tripura- 799001.

  

2. GIONEE INDIA,

    Unit 608, 6th Floor, 

    Merlin Infinite, DN 51,

    Sec- V, Salt Lake City,

    Kolkata- 700091.      .............Opposite parties.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR B. PAL,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Ashim Das,

  Advocate. 

 

For the O.Ps. : Smt. Sujata Deb (Gupta),

  Sri Bikram Paul,

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  28.11.2019

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Arghya Banik set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the complainant in order to purchase one Gionee mobile charger visited the shop of the O.P. No.1 on 01.08.18 who is the authorized  Service provider of Gionee Mobile Company. Being asked by the complainant, the O.P. No.1 sold him one Gionee mobile charger for Rs.800/-. The O.P. No.1 has not provided packet of the mobile charger and warranty facility though the complainant had asked for the same. The complainant has alleged that the actual price of the mobile charger was Rs.400/- but he had to pay Rs.800/- to the O.P. No.1 which is actually double the amount of the actual price. The O.P. No.1 however, denied the allegation of the complainant and stated to the complainant that he had charged Rs.800/- which was the actual price of the charger. The complainant has stated in his complaint that as per his request, the O.P. No.1 provided him an invoice against selling of the charger and that the invoice contains GSTIN number, CGST & SGST etc. The complainant further alleged that on enquiry through internet he found that the O.P. No.1 had used false GSTIN number and that the O.P. No.1 never paid any tax against the said GSTIN number purported to have been used by him. After few  days of purchase the mobile charger started to give problem and the complainant has thus faced inconveniences in using his mobile set. He could hardly talk to his official colleagues and higher authority in discharging his official duties. Being dissatisfied with the performance of the mobile charger the complainant issued a demand notice dated 17.09.18 to the O.P. No.1 and claimed Rs.1 lac 5 thousand for deficiency in service, selling of mobile charger with excessive rate, without its packet & warranty and also for using false GSTIN number by the O.P. No.1 apart from legal charges. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the O.P. No.1 did not make any reply to the legal notice though notice was duly served upon him. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed the instant complaint against the O.Ps praying for compensation of Rs.1 Lac  with 12 % interest on the said amount from the date of purchase of the mobile charger i.e., on from 01.08.18. Hence, this case.        

 

2. Based on the complaint, notices were sent to both the O.Ps. In course of the proceedings address of the O.P. No.2 had been deleted and new address has been inserted as per order of this Forum dated 29.01.2019. Out of the 2 O.Ps, O.P. No.1 appeared and has contested the case by filing written objection. The presence of the O.P. No.2, however, could not be secured though the complainant had been given opportunity for securing the attendance of the O.P. No.2 by furnishing correct address of the O.P. No.2.

 

The O.P. No.1 in his written objection has denied the contentions and allegations of the complainant. The O.P. No.1 has asserted in his written objection that at the time of selling the mobile charger the complainant was duly appraised by him that for buying only charger without mobile phone warranty facility could not be provided to the complainant and that as per company's norms in case spare parts/ accessories are sold along with mobile phone only then warranty would be provided to a customer. The O.P. No.1 denied that the complainant ever raised any dispute about the price of the mobile charger and that instead of charging Rs.400/- as per company's rate he demanded Rs.800/- for the charger illegally. While admitting issuance of the Cash Memo from his shop, the O.P. No.1 stated that it was due to the mistake committed by his newly appointed staff, the complainant had been issued old invoice unintentionally wherein GSTIN number and CGST & SGST were printed. According to the O.P. No.1,  Rs.800/- which has been mentioned on the cash memo was  the actual price of the mobile charger. The O.P. No.1 further stated in his written objection that O.P. being a seller had registered himself under the GST and that he has been doing his business with all valid GST documents since 31.05.2018. 

Denying any deficiency of service on his part towards the complainant, the O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

  

Evidence adduced by the parties:-

The complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He was cross examined by the O.P. side. 

The complainant has produced 4 documents. The documents were marked as Exhibit- 1  Series. 

The O.P. No.1 also examined himself  as O.P.W. and submitted his examination in chief by  way of affidavit. He was also cross examined by the complainant side.  He has produced  2 documents which were marked Exhibit- A Series.

 

4. Points to be determined:-

(i) Whether O.P. No.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice against the complainant?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation /relief as prayed for ?

 

5. Decision and reasons for decision:-  

We have herd arguments advanced by both sides advocates. Both sides also have submitted written arguments. We have gone through the complaint, the evidence adduced by the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant. We have also gone through the written objection filed by the O.Ps, the evidence adduced by the O.P. No.1 and the documentary evidence produced by him. 

It is evident from the case record that the complainant on 01.08.2018 purchased one Gionee Mobile charger from the O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.800/-. According to the complainant, the O.P. No.1 deprived him of warranty facility of the mobile charger, the packet thereof and that the O.P. No.1 had illegally charged Rs.800/- against the mobile charger whereas as per company's rate the price of the charger was Rs.400/-. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant faced inconvenience with the mobile charger as it started to give problem within few days after using the same. Though the O.P. No.1 had been served with the Demand Notice by the complainant, the O.P. No.1 has ignored the notice completely and did not gave any reply to it.  According to the Learned Counsel for the complainant the O.P. No.1 is guilty of committing unfair trade practice and as such the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

Per contra Learned Advocate appearing for the O.P. No.1 has argued that complainant had been duly appraised by the staff of the O.P. No.1 that for purchasing only a mobile charger excluding the mobile set no warranty facility could be provided to the complainant and that knowing fully well about it the complainant had voluntarily purchased the charger on payment of Rs.800/-. According to the Learned Advocate for the O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.1 had charged Rs.800/- which was the actual price of the charger as per the company's rate. Regarding GSTIN number and CGST & SGST appearing on the invoice as alleged by the complainant, Learned Counsel for the O.P. No.1 argued that it had happened due to the unintentional mistake committed by the newly appointed staff of the O.P. No.1 who had signed and issued the invoice in favour of the complainant. Learned Advocate has contended that the complainant has been doing his business having had registered himself under the GST since 31.05.2018. In support of this the O.P. No.1 had relied upon the copy of the GSTN Registration certificate and the copy of the Provisional Registration Certificate under Exhibit -A Series. Learned counsel argued that the complainant did not visit the service centre of the O.P. No.1 with the mobile charger which according to the complainant  was giving problem after using of it. Learned Counsel further argued that the complainant has failed to produce cogent evidence to prove that the O.P. No.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice with the complainant. He thus prayed for rejecting the consumer complaint.

 

We have found force in the argument advanced by the Learned Advocate for the O.P. No.1. We find that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the O.P. No.1 had charged Rs.800/- illegally being the price of the Gionee mobile charger which is double the amount of the actual price of  Rs.400/-. The complainant in support of this assertion has filed to adduce rebuttal evidence to show that the actual price of the mobile charger was Rs.400/- instead of Rs.800/- at the relevant point of time. The complainant has also failed to produce any documentary proof in support his claim that he was entitled to get benefit of warranty against the charger. Regarding the GSTIN number appearing in the memo against the purchase of the charger, the O.P. No.1 has clarified it satisfactorily. According to him the memo was issued and signed by his staff by mistake who was newly recruited by him and that there was no unlawful gain by him out of issuance of the said memo. The O.P. No.1 in his written objection have emphatically stated that he being a seller has registered himself under the GST and that he has been doing his business with valid GST documents since 31.05.2018. In support of this assertion he has relied upon the copy of the GSTN Registration certificate and the copy of the Provisional Registration Certificate in his name under Exhibit-A Series. Hence, we are satisfied that the O.P. No.1 did not exercise any fraud upon the complainant. 

Having regard to the material available on record we do not find any plausible evidence to hold the O.P. No.1 guilty of committing unfair trade practice. The complainant as such is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. No.1. Both the issues are answered accordingly.

In view of the discussion made above,  we find and hold that the complainant has failed to make out a case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the O.P. No.1. 

In the result, the Consumer complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed . There is no order is to costs.    

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 

SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR  B. PAL,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA