West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/70/2014

Sri Prabir Saha (Advocate). - Complainant(s)

Versus

Confidence Mobile Solution Proprietor-Sarfarosh. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.70/2014                                                                                              Date of disposal: 18 /03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. P. Ghosh, Advocate.                                  

          

 Sri Prabir Saha (Advocate), S/o B.R. Saha, Bulbulchati, Mirpur, P.S. & P.O. Kharagpur (L), Dist-

 Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721301.…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 Confidence Mobile Solution Proprietor-Sarfarosh, Block -D4, near Kamal Complex Golebazar,  

 P.S. & P.O. Kharagpur (T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur...……………Op.

          The case of the complainant Sri Prabir Saha, in short, is that he is the owner of a cell phone being its Model No.Desire VT328W.  It is alleged that the said cell phone was submitted for its repairing on 08/04/2013 but on its taken back, it is discovered that some parts thereof were alter, namely Camera Device etc.  On challenge, the OP flatly denied and started altercation on the issue of actual ownership of the cell phone.  Stating the case, the complainant raised the allegation of cheating and harassing before us claiming for compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and stated therein that the cell phone in question is not owned by the complainant.  The actual owner is one Sarwan of Golbazar.  The receipt dated 14/04/2014 was issued at the time of selling the same from the end of the OP.  Thus, there is no case of cheating or harassing or deficiency of service and as such the case should be dismissed.      

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                                                              - ( 2 ) –

 

3)Whether the complainant is the owner of the sale Phone?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the OP Confidence Mobile Solution has alter the cell phone of Model Desire VT328W has been intentionally alter in order to defraud the complainant which is not proper and on that ground the complainant should be compensated in terms of the prayer made  in the petition of the complaint.

              Ld. Advocate for the OP raised strong objection through his argument that the Cash Memo dated 14/04/2014 itself shows the owner of the cell phone is otherwise not in the name of complainant.   In order to support the claim Ld. Advocate has referred to the document of cash memo dated 14/04/2014.  If that be so, the complainant hereof is not a consumer for the purpose of seeking benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  So, the case should be dismissed.

             We have carefully perused the case in consideration of the argument made by the Ld. Advocate.  It appears that the cash memo being its No.144 dated 14/04/2014 in the form of estimate slip is in the name of one Sarwan which bears no relevancy to the name of the complainant as a bona fide purchaser.  Apart from that, there is no explanation as to why the complainant raises the allegation as in the petition of complaint against the OP since he does not legally own the cell phone in question.

             In view of the observation made above, we do not find any material in favour of the complainant for giving him relief as prayed for.

            Thus, it is held and decided that the case is not maintainable in its present form and as such the case should be dismissed.   

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                                Member                              President

                                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur.