Date of Filing: 02-12-2016 Date of Final Order: 10-08-2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President.
This is an application u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986. The facts of the case are as follows :
That, one Subha Karmakar (hereinafter referred as Complainant) got a Micromax Mobile set being Model No. Micromax Canvas Spark Q380 from his friend Subinoy Biswas who purchased the same. The said Mobile set was stopped working all on a sudden on 11.07.16 and the Complainant deposited the Mobile set with Mahamaya Enterprise (hereinafter referred as OP), being the authorized Service Centre of Micromax. The OP returned the handset to the Complainant on 16.08.16 but some problem cropped up within 2/3 days from the date of receipt of the set for which the Complainant deposited the said set again with the OP on 20.08.16 but the OP did not return the same after repair in spite of repeated requests.
Accordingly, the Complainant has claimed one new Mobile set of the same Brand or Rs.5,000/- as cost of the Mobile set, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and other reliefs.
The OP contested the case by filing affidavit-in-chief on 18.05.17 contending that the Complainant is not the bona-fide purchaser, as one Subinoy Biswas was the purchaser but the OP received the Mobile set from the Complainant on 16.08.16. The Mobile set was sent to the Office of the Micromax Co. situated in Kolkata and ultimately, the Company agreed to provide service. As such, some delay has occurred.
In the light of the contention of both the parties, the following points come up for consideration :
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully along with Evidence on Affidavit filed by the parties also perused the entire materials on record and heard the argument as advanced by the Complainant and the Ld, Agent for the O.Ps, perused also the W/Ar. Filed by the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps.
Point No.1.
The Complainant submits that he is the user of the Mobile set which was received as a gift from his friend Subinoy Biswas. He contends that the OP received the Mobile set for servicing as the OP is the authorized Service Centre of the Micromax Co. He also submits that he is the consumer. The Ld. Agent for the OP has raised no objection against Point No.1.
The Complainant handed over the Mobile set being Model No.Q380 on 20.08.16 to the OP and the OP received the same being authorized Service Centre of Micromax Mobile set. Therefore, the OP has accepted the Complainant as a consumer. Hence, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.2.
Neither of the parties has argued nothing on this point. On going through the materials on record, this Forum finds valid reason to hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the instant case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The Complainant submits that he has already received the Mobile set from the OP on 07.03.17 replacing by new IMEI Nos.911429308117547 and 911429308622694 in lieu of IMEI No.911454853995063. He submits that the warranty period has already been extended for 180 days i.e. up to 07.09.17.
The Ld. Agent for the OP submits that a Mobile set had been delivered to the Complainant by replacing the old IMEI No. to new IMEI No. and the period of warranty has been extended. He contends that the Complainant is not the purchaser of the Micromax Canvas Spark Q380, Item Code DC1694026 but one Subinoy Biswas was the purchaser as per Retail Invoice dated 26.08.15.
The OP admitted that he received the Mobile set on 20.08.16 for repair from the Complainant and handed over the Mobile set to the Complainant on 07.03.17 with extended warranty of 180 days i.e. up to 07.09.17. The Complainant has not filed any paper to substantiate that Subinoy Biswas gifted the Mobile to him. Whatever may be the facts, the O.P. delivered a Mobile to the Complainant in running condition by replacing his old EMEI No probably due to non repairable condition of the mother board. As the Complainant has received the Mobile set with satisfaction from the O.P. with extended warranty of 180 days, this Forum finds nothing to hold that the OP has deficiency in service.
Therefore, it is held that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present case being No CC/109/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest but with no order as to cost. The Copy of Retail Invoice dated 20.08.15 with original endorsement of Mahamaya Enterprise, Cooch Behar (O.P.) dated 07.03.17 be returned to the Complainant after keeping a Xerox copy, so that the Complainant may use the document in case of necessity.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
