Orissa

Rayagada

CC/5/2016

S.Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maa Majhigouri Telecom, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                 C.C. Case  No.05/ 2016.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Santosh Kumar, S/o S.G.Swami,33 years, Raniguda Farm, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Majhi Gouri Telecom, Hathipathar Road, Rayagada, Odisha.
2. The Manager,  Sony India Private Ltd.,, Mathura  Road, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                          …...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P No.1 & 2:  Sri  K.C.Mohapatra and Associates  Advocate, Bhubaneswar.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  a   Samsung Mobile  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.20,000/- on 01/02/2015   and during    its  warranty period the set  was found  some defect and it was given for service to the authorised service  centre and even such service  the defects persist in the mobile set  and the authaorised person has asked to moved the matter to the company for replacement or refund of the price .The OP manufacturing company has paid deaf ear to the genuine complaint .Hence, the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to   refund the  cost of the mobile  Rs.20,000/- with interest  and  cost and   compensation. Hence, this complaint.

                       

                        On being noticed,  the O.p  2 appeared  through their counsel  and filed any written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.

                        On being notice, the Opp.Parties appeared through  their Counsel  and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars .It is submitted  by the O.Ps  that the complainant  has purchased a Sony Mobile on 01.02.15  from O.p 1 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- with a warranty period of one year. After purchase the complainant has used the said mobile smoothly till day without any allegation and just prior to expiry of the warranty  all of sudden without any prior intimation to any Ops and without any cause of action the complainant has filed this false complaint petition before this forum against the Ops. The complainant  has not mentioned the cause of action  and has not filed any document or job sheet regarding his visit for repair before the service centre and no evidence was filed by the complainant regarding the proof of defect arose in his mobile phone and also not filed any expert opinion  regarding the inherent defect in his mobile. In oblique motive  and with ill intention the complainant has filed this false  case only to   tarnish the reputation of the OPs and to get the unlawful gains from the OP2. There is no  inherent manufacturing defect or the Ops committed any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service rather the complainant is giving mental  tension and harassment to the OP2 by filing this complaint and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  mobile set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the mobile set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. In reply, the Ops submitted that the complainant  neither mentioned  the date of visiting the service centre  for repair nor  the name of service centre and failed to provide any proof regarding repair of the her mobile phone and the complainant has filed this case  without any cause of action and just prior to expire of the warranty period of the  said mobile phone with false,  baseless and frivolous pleas. 

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

                        Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

                        We perused the documents filed by the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that  the mobile set was  found defective immediately after  its purchase and she went to Service Centre but the service centre failed to remove the defects but he has  not  filed any  job sheet of service centre. On verification of  retail invoice it reveals that the  complainant has purchased the mobile on 01/02/2015  and filed this complaint on 06.01.2016 prior to expiry of warranty. At this stage we hold that  if the mobile set  require  service during its warranty period and the if  Ops fail to provide proper service as per their warranty condition, then it can be  termed as deficiency in service  on the part of the Ops and  the complainant is entitled to  get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss but in the instant case the   complainant  claims that his mobile was found defective during  its  warranty period and went to service centre for its  repair but failed to file the  job  sheet of the  service centre where he went for service of his defective mobile . Since the complainant  fails to establish his  case by filing documentary evidence regarding its defect during its warranty period, we do not believe the allegations of the complainant and also  we do not found any fault from the side of the Ops and  as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence, it is ordered.

                                                ORDER

                         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that  since the  complaint fails to substantiate his case by adducing documentary evidence, we do not found any fault from the side of the OPs. However, if  the complainant claims any defect in the mobile set, the Ops are directed to   repair the mobile  set free of cost  and handover the same to the complainant. There shall be no order as to costs and compensation.           

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 29^th  day of December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

 

 

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of  Cash/Credit Bill.
2. Xerox copy of Warranty Card.

 

By the Opp.Party: Nil                                                                          President