Date of Filing: 30-08-2016 Date of Final Order: 05-05-2017
Sri Gurupada Mondal, President.
This is an application under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 filed by one Palash Das against Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar and Micromax Company praying for compensation of Rs.8,999/-, litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-, to and fro journey expenses of Rs.30,000/- and other cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The case of the Complainant in short is that he is a student of Tejpur University and purchased a Micromax Mobile handset YU Yureka Plus on 13.08.15 through Amazon.in at a consideration of Rs.8,999/-. After the expiry of some days, the said Mobile was found defective and thereafter, the Complainant went to the Micromax Service Centre on 15.04.16 and handed over the said Mobile handset at the Service Centre being IMEI No.99441050204712. Thereafter, the said Service Centre did not return the Mobile handset to the Complainant inspite of several reminders. The Service Centre informed the Complainant that the said Mobile handset was sent before the Company on 18.07.16 by issuing a job-sheet but till that date, the said Mobile was not returned. The Complainant is a student of Tejpur University and as a result, he could not communicate to others and also suffered in his education. Accordingly, the Complainant has filed the instant case against the OPs for proper relief. Summons upon the OP No.2 Micromax Company was duly served but the OP No.2 did not turn up to contest the case. Accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against OP No.2. The OP No.1 Mahamaya Enterprise, in order to contest the case, filed written objection denying all material allegations contending inter-alia that the instant complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case. The case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
Specific case of the OP No.1 is that the Complainant brought the Mobile handset to the Service Centre on 24.06.16 complaining dead problem and to that effect, they issued a job card and sent the same to the Head Office for repairing.
Further case of the OP No.1 is that the alleged Mobile was with multiple software/Android/Latest version handset and the problem arose due to mis-handling, and excessive Net surfing. The problem occurred due to mis-handling of its software or virus attack due to excessive charging. The OP No.1 also suggested the Complainant to avoid such type of use and to follow the guidelines of the Company. It is also alleged that the Complainant filed the instant case for harassment and suppressing the material fact. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost. In the light of the above contention of the Complainant and its written version, the following points come up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1
It reveals from the documents filed by the Complainant that one Pankaj Das purchased the alleged Mobile handset through amazon.in. The alleged Mobile was manufactured by the OP No.2. The OP No.1 is the Service Centre. It is further evident to us that one Palas Das has filed the instant case against the OPs. There is no evidence on record that Pankaj Das and Palas Das are the same and identical person. There is no evidence on record how the Mobile handset comes into the hand of the present Complainant Palash Das. There is no evidence on record how Palash Das became the consumer of the alleged Mobile handset. There is no evidence on record that Palash Das purchased the said Mobile handset or he received it by way of inheritance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present consumer Palash Das is the consumer of the alleged Mobile. Moreover, we do not find that the purchaser viz. Pankaj Das has authorized Palash Das to file the instant case. Hence, this case is not maintainable. This point is decided against the Complainant.
Point No.2
The Mobile handset of Pankaj Das was receied through Amazon.in at Cooch Behar by the said Pankaj Das. The Service Centre and the Branch Office of the OP No.2 is situated at Cooch Behar. The claim amount is less than the pecuniary limit of this Forum. Accordingly, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for convenience of discussions as well as the points are related with each other. From the documentary evidence, it is evident to us that one Pankaj Das purchased the Mobile handset through amazon.in manufactured by OP No.2. The Complainant purchased the said Mobile set on 13.08.15 but the said Mobile was found defective on 15.04.16 within the warranty period and said Pankaj Das handed over the Mobile set to the Service Centre and the Service Centre received the same and sent it for servicing in the Office of the OP No.2. The OP No.2 did not return back the alleged Mobile set to said Pankaj Das. Accordingly, we hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. We also find that the OP No.1 did not take much initiative to return back the Mobile set to the Complainant. Accordingly, we find that both the OP No.1 and OP No.2 had deficiency of service but from the earlier discussions, we find that one Palash Das filed the instant case against the OPs who has no locus-standi to file the instant case. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and Ex-parte against the O.P. No.2. There is no order as to cost.
The O.P. No.1 is hereby directed to return back the mobile in running condition from whom it was taken.
Let a copy of the final order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
