DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.11 of 2016
Uttam Mishra, S/o. Late Satyabadi Mishra, aged about 35 years, Occupation – Business, R/o. village and P.O. Khambeswaripali, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LTD. Registered Address A – 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi - 110044
2. Debendra Sathua, S/o. Gopal Sathua, aged about 26 years, Occupation – Business, Prop. Ganapati Mobile, R/o. village and P.O. Khambeswaripali, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur,
3. M/s.Mahesh Enterprises, Authorized Samsung Care Centre, At Sudpara, Bolangir in front of Yubadaya College, Bolangir, P.O./P.S./District - Bolangir
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri L.Bej
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 ………. Sri U.N.Purohit
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 3 ………. Sri R.Kumbhar
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.24.09.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
The complainant’s case is that he purchased one Samsung Mobile from the shop of O.P. No.2 which is situated at Khambeswaripali. As such the complainant is a consumer and O.Ps. are service provider within the meaning of C.P. Act. The cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. After 4 to 5 months there was problem in the mobile set for which the same was produced before the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 made necessary repair at his end. But at last on 20.7.2016 the said mobile set of the complainant got completely defunct and its display was out of order.
-: 2 :-
After this the complainant approached O.P. No.3 for necessary repair or replacement. It is alleged that the O.P. No.3 had been to shop of O.P. No.2, but without any repair he redelivered the set and advised the complainant to contract O.P. No.2 who will himself lodge the complaint. Complainant alleged that he with his friend Kapilash Mendli went to the shop of O.P. No.2. But they did not respond and refused to provide any service and assigned no reason.
The complainant alleged that he has been exploited by the O.Ps. He has sustained loss and suffered mentally and physically.
Hence, he has prayed that he be given a new mobile set or in the alternative the purchase value of the of the mobile set be paid to him. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and allied factors and Rs.7000/- for cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. were noticed in this case. All the O.Ps. entered appearance. The O.P. No.2 has not filed version. The O.P. No.1 and 3 has filed version.
The gist of version of O.P. No.1 and 3 is as follows :-
1. The O.P. No.2 is a dealer and he has no experience of repair of mobile phone.
2. If the mobile phone got completely defunct on 20.7.2016 how the complainant detected that the display was out of order.
3. There is no proof that on 20.7.2016 the mobile phone of the complainant got completely defunct. Complainant has not filed any expert opinion.
4. The complainant has not produced the mobile phone before the O.P. No.3 so the O.P. No.3 has not supplied the mobile phone of complainant to authorized service centre of Bolangir.
5. Neither the complainant nor his friends visited the shop of O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 refused to provide service.
6. It is the duty of the complainant to prove his case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence.
Since the complainant has failed to prove his case the complainant case be dismissed.
-: 3 :-
Although the O.P. No.2 has not filed version, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 was present during hearing and he was allowed to participate during hearing. He submitted that the O.P. No.2 has not committed any deficiency of service. We have heard Mr.L.Bej learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.R.Kumbhar learned counsel for O.P. No.1 and 3. We have also perused the materials on record.
From the pleading of the parties, submissions of learned counsel during hearing the moot question that requires adjudication by the Forum is :-
“Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps. ? ”
The O.P. No.2 in this case was a dealer. His shop is not the authorized service centre of Samsung Mobile. The complainant produced the mobile phone before him. He undertook some repair with the limited resources that was available with him. So we have not found any deficiency of service on his part.
The complainant alleged that ultimately on 20.07.2016 the mobile set got completely defunct after this the complainant delivered the mobile set to O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 himself had been to the shop of O.P. No.2 for necessary repair, but the O.P. No.2 redelivered the set to him without making necessary repair. The complainant alongwith his friend Kapilash Mendli went to the shop of O.P. No.2 but he did not pay any heed to the grievance of the complainant. This fact has been denied by the O.P. NO.1 and 3 in their version . The complainant has not filed the affidavit of the said Kapilash Mendli.
The complainant alleged that on 20.7.2016 the mobile set got completely defunct. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of his allegations. He has not filed any expert evidence. Even the mobile set is not produced before us. For the reasons stated supra we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by cogent and convincing evidence.
-: 4 :-
In consumer cases it is the complainant who is to carry the ball in proving his case. The case of the complainant either stand or fall on its own. The complainant cannot take advantages of the laches of O.Ps. It is unfortunate that the complainant failed to substantiate his case by cogent and convincing evidence. So we are left with no option but to dismiss the complaint.
Resultantly this complaint case is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Complaint is dismissed.
Dated the 24th September 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.24.09.2018 Dt.24.09.2018 Dt.24.09.2018
