CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 18th day of February 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing :26/3/2013
CC / 65 / 2013
Dileep. V,
S/o. P.R. Vasu,
Panchamadam House,
Kalleri, kannambra (P.O),
Palakkad – 678 686. : Complainant
(By Adv. V.N. Sheeja)
Vs
1. Chandran,
Fone Park Mobile Phone Sales, Service & Accessories,
Kannambra Bank Junction,
Kannambra (P.O),
Palakkad.
2. Vijayan,
Fone Park Mobile Phone Sales, Service & Accessories,
Kannambra Bank Junction,
Kannambra (P.O),
Palakkad. : Opposite parties
(By Adv. K. Krishnakumar)
O R D E R
BY Smt. Seena. H, President
Brief case of the complainant :-
Complainant received a Samsung Mobile as a gift from his friend. Mobile was purchased on 20/12//2012. Charger of the said mobile was found to be defective within the warranty period and same was handed over to the opposite parties for repair. Substitute charger was given on payment of Rs.70/- by the opposite parties which was also a defective one. Even after so many days opposite parties did not rectified the defect and handed over the charger to the complainant. On 23/3/2013 when the complainant approached the opposite party for receiving the original charger, the opposite parties misbehaved and man handed the complainant. According to the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence prays for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify and return the original charger or its price along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.
Opposite parties filed version denying the entire case of the complainant. According to opposite parties complainant is not a customer of opposite parties and no transactions has taken place between the complainant and opposite parties. According to opposite parties, complainant has personal revenge over the 1st opposite party due to family issues and hence in order to trouble and disturb the 1st opposite party the complaint has been filed. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to Ext.A6 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite parties.
Issues for consideration
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issues 1 & 2
Purchase of mobile was born out by Ext.A1. According to the complainant it was gifted to him by his friend. Ext.A2 which is the warranty card is the only evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the ownership. Perusing Ext.A2 it is seen that many numbers are noted therein including the number of the charger etc. Since complainant has not produced the mobile before the Forum we are not in a position to ascertain whether Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the mobile set purchased as per Ext.A1. Moreover in the said warranty card it is specifically stated in Clause 1 that the warranty is confined to the first purchaser only and is not transferable . The seal fixed in the warranty card is the only evidence to connect opposite parties. Other than Ext. A2 there is nothing on record to show that the charger has been handed over to opposite parties for repairing. Since Ext.A2 itself does not prove that the same is the warranty of mobile purchased by the complainant, we are of the view that Ext.A2 has little evidentiary value. Complainant has produced Ext.A6 which is the bill issued for the purchase of the mobile by a friend of the complainant from the opposite party’s shop to prove that the seal of the opposite party on Ext.A2 and Ext.A6 are one and the same. On comparison of the two documents it is seen that the two seals are not exactly the same. In the absence of concrete evidence we are not in a position to believe the same. Another point to be noted is that as per the complaint and chief affidavit the whole set of incidents took place on 22/3/2013. But as per Ext.A5 which is the copy of police complaint given by the complainant, incident is seen to have taken place on 23/3/2013. It is seen that complainant’s evidence and documents itself is contradictory. Even at the time of hearing also, complainant has no case that the date was erroneously stated. The facts and evidence on record shows that complainant has approached the Forum with unclean hands. It is a settled principal of law that one who seeks equity must do equity. It is understood that complainant has filed this complaint on experimental basis. Consumer Protection Act has clearly laid down provisions to tackle such situations. As per Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, “Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission, is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees (Rs.10,000/-) , as may be specified in the order”.
In view of the above discussion we dismiss the complaint with the cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to opposite parties. Complainant shall pay the cost ordered within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the opposite parties can realize the same as per the provisions of Act.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of February 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Retail Invoice Form (original) issued by the Alif Mobile, Ernakulam
Ext.A2 - Warranty Card (original) issued by the opposite parties.
Ext.A3 - Certificate (original) issued by the Chilankavanam Sree Ayyappaswami Temple Committee dated 29/4/2013.
Ext.A4 - Phone Bill (copy) issued by the Idea Cellular Ltd. to the complainant.
Ext.A5 - Complaint (copy) send by the complainant to the Police Station, Vadakkanchery.
Ext.A6 - Bill (original) issued by the opposite parties to Hariprasad dated 14/8/2013.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Dileep. V
PW2 - P. Hariprasad.
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
