Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Safikul Alam
For OP/OPs : Romeet Sil
Date of filing of the case :02.06.2022
Date of Disposal of the case :05.07.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.05.07.2023
Complainant above name filed the present complaint u/s 35 Consumer Protection Act 2019against the aforesaid OPs praying for direction for replacement of mobile set, Rs. 15,999/-, Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony and cost of the case and another relief.
He alleged that he had purchased one new Samsung M 315 (Black) (6/64) Mobile Phone from OP no. 1 after payment of Rs. 15,000/-. But after one and half month from the date of purchase some problems have arisen in the set of Mobile Phone. Complainant went before OP no. 2 for repairing for the same but OP no. 2 failed to rectify the same. Mobile set was very hot after use of some times. Said Mobile Phone was defective.
Complainant went before the OP no. 2 on 05.05.2022 but he did not take any steps. Hence, the complainant filed this case.
OP no. 1 filed W/V and denied the entire allegations. He stated that complainant purchased one new Samsung M 315 (Black) (6/64) Mobile Phone from OP no. 1 and after purchasing the same he went to OP no. 1 for repairing of the said Mobile Phone which was within the warranty period. OP no. 1 took the said Mobile Phone from the complainant and thereafter sent the same on 14.05.2021 to the OP no. 2 for repairing. Samsung Service Centre duly repaired the same on 24.05.2021 and sent back the same to the OP no. 1 thereafter, OP no. 1 delivered the same to the complainant.
Similarly, again complainant came before the OP no. 1 on 24.09.2021. then OP no. 1 again sent the said Mobile Phone to the OP no. 2 on 24.09.2021.
On 29.09.2021 OP no. 2 repaired the same and subsequently, complainant got back his Mobile Phone through OP no. 1.
There is no manufacturing defect nor deficiency in service of the Service Centre Agency. He prays for dismissal of the case.
OP no. 2 filed W/V and denied the entire allegation. He also stated that on two occasions aforesaid Mobile Phone was repaired.
TRIAL
During trial complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. He filed certain documents.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant produced following documents:-
- Original copy of Cash memo of New Biswas Telecom dtd. 26.01.2021. (annexure -1)
- Xerox copy of warranty card. (annexure -2)
Xerox copy of warranty period of the product and general terms and conditions. (annexure -3)
- Xerox copy of correct disposal of the product. (annexure - 3 (2)
- Xerox copy of Name of Commodity/ mobile Phone SMM315FZKDINS. (annexure -4)
- Xerox Copy of Samsung Galaxy M3 . (annexure -5).
- Xerox copy of SM-M315F/DS . (annexure -6).
- Xerox copy of Special Terms and conditions. (annexure -7).
- Xerox copy of important information. (annexure -7 (3).
- Xerox copy of specification of Mobile Phone (annexure -8)
OP no 1 produced following documents :-
- Xerox copy FORM 11 dtd. 10.09.2021.
- Xerox copy of identity card of Aradhana Biswas.
- Xerox copy of identity card of Kallol Sarkar.
- Original copy of letter of authorization of New Biswas Telecom.
OP no 2 produced following documents:-
- Xerox copy of acknowledgement of Service Request( two copies).
- Xerox copy of certificate of enlistment issued by Krishnanagar Municipality.
- Xerox copy of AADHAAR Card of Arindam Saha.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA. OP no. 1 and 2 not yet filed any BNA.
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the OP no. 1 and 2, documents filed by the complainant, documents filed by the OP no. 1 and documents filed by the OP no. 2 and BNA filed by the complainant.
We have carefully considered the same. No interrogatories have been filed against the affidavit-in-chief of the complainant by the OP no. 1 and 2. Case is running ex-parte against OP no. 3. We do not find any reasons to disbelieve the affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant.
On careful perusal of purchase receipt we find that complaint purchased the new Samsung M 315 (Black) (6/64) from OP no. 1 on payment of Rs.15,999/. It is the allegation of the complainant that said Mobile Phone is not functioning properly.
On perusal of W/V of OP no. 1 and 2 we find that said Mobile Phone was repaired on two occasions by the OP no. 2. But complainant did not mention the same in the petition of complaint. He duly suppressed the fact that Mobile Phone was repaired for two occasions.
On perusal of documents dtd. 24.09.2021 we find that Mobile Phone was repaired on 24.09.2021.
On perusal of the documents dtd. 14.05.2021 we find that aforesaid Mobile Phone of the complainant was repaired on 14.05.2021.
Accordingly, we find that aforesaid Mobile Phone of the complainant was repaired on two occasions i.e on 14.05.2021 and 24.09.2021.
After the said repairing complainant did not raise any complaint before the OP no. 1 for OP no. 2.
Moreover, complainant did not file any application before this Commission for examination of the said Mobile Phone by competent Authority. If the complainant would filed any such application then it would ascertained whether any manufacturing defect is lying with the aforesaid Mobile Phone or not.
Moreover, complainant did not make any written communication with the OP no. 1 and 2 in respect of his grievance relating to defect of the aforesaid Mobile Phone.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has failed to establish his grievance by sufficient documents.
In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP no. 1 and 2 and dismissed ex-parte against OP n. 3 but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties as free of cost.
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ ………………………………….
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) ( MILLIKA SAMADDAR)
