J U D G E M E N T.
Brief facts of the case is that :- The Petitioner/Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner has purchased a Micromax Mobile Model No. A/90 from the O.P. No. 1 by paying a considerable amount of Rs. 11,100/- (Rupees Eleven thousand and one hundred) only on 28.9.2014 along with its warranty period from one year from the date of purchase.
The Mobile vide No. 1MET No. M-IME1 911369851781473 after some days the problem of Display and Touch Screen callbration arose in the mobile set for that, the complainant has given the O.P. No.2 for repairing the mobile within the warranty period. Hence the petitioner has handed over the mobile to O.P. No.2 i.e. M/s Cell Zone, Khariar Road the Servicing Centre. After 20 days the petitioner demanded to O.P. No.2 for handed over the repaired mobile set to the petitioner. Again and again he complained before the O.P. for the refund of the mobile set but the O.P. No. 2 does not listen the matter of the complainant.
For that the petitioner/complainant has filed this case and pray for compensation of cost of the Mobile Rs. 11,100/- (Rupees Eleven thousand and one hundred) only and cost of litigation, Advocate fee and Rs. 75,000/- towards harassment and mental agony. This problem arose due to negligence of the O.Ps. The complainant has filed the relied documents and engaged one Advocate. The documents like :-
- Bill for the purchase of Mobile dated 28.9.2014,
- Repairing and Servicing Bill of O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No. 1 & 2 are filed their version in different dates separately. The O.P. No. 1 is the Seller and the O.P. No. 2 is Service Centre at Khariar Road both are within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The O.P. No. 1 namely, The Centre Point, the Proprietor Yogesh Jain has admitted that he had sold one Mobile vide the above mentioned number by considering amount of Rs. 11,100/- (Rupees Eleven thousand and one hundred) only with its warranty card of one year. In the receipt or Bill of the said mobile which is in question, clearly mentioned the problem within the warranty period the risk covered and solved by the Service Centre (O.P. ) M/s Cell Zone, Khariar Road O.P. No.1 is no way responsible for any defect after the purchase, accordingly the O.P. No. 1 is not liable for pay any cost and expenditure as compensation.
The O.P. No. 2 has filed his version, say we are the Service Centre for the Micromax Mobile Set, for minor problem in case any major problems arose we will sent the handset or Mobile set to the Micromax Informatics Centre Limited New Delhi. The customer Santosh Patel has deposited the Mobile to me on 01.9.2015 for repairing of the Mobile set No. A/190 and took the Job Sheet vide No. 30053-0912-1892070 for sensor problem after checking here we send the mobile set to Head Office New Delhi of PCB replacement on dated 02.9.2015. We provide Toll Free Number of the Company to the complainant. The Head Office has agreed to send back the mobile within one month. Some delay occurs due to spare parts problem the mobile could not be repaired within due time. Then the Micromax Company New Delhi has send back the mobile on 23.11.2015 after repairing, I informed the customer the present petitioner but he refused to take the repaired mobile and already he has filed a cases against the O.PS.
The O.P. No. 2 has filed the version along with cause of delay for delivery of the repaired mobile to the complainant and filed and attached the mail copy of the company for that O.P. No. 2 is not liable for any compensation as duly do his duty as a service provide for the purpose of provide service to the consumers.
O R D E R.
Perused the records and the petition filed by the petitioner/ complainant and version of O.P. No. 1 & 2, we observe that, the petitioner and O.Ps are not present in the Court since a longtime even not informed their view and the Forum has not heard the parties except the petition of the complaint and the version of the O.Ps. The Forum has observed there is a mutual settlement between both the parties for that they could not appeared before the Forum at the time of hearing and argument. Sufficient time has given by the Court for early disposal of this case to the petitioner and O.P.s did not cooperate in the case matter. But the Court has taken its own steps to drop the case as dismiss for default. Hence this case is disposed off accordingly.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 15th day of December 2016.
