Date of Filing: 10-03-2014 Date of Final Order: 14-11-2014
The case of the Complainant as culled out from the record in brief is that the Complainant gave his Mobile hand set model No. LAVA C81, IMEI- 911217052283605 on 04.10.2013 for repairing the touch pad to the Opposite Party i. e. Mahamaya Enterprise. But after a long day on 09.02.2014 the Opposite Party wanted to return back the set in off mode at the office of the Consumer affairs & Fair Business Practice and the Complainant denied to accept the set. The problem of touch pad cropped up within the warranty period but the Opposite Party being a service centre did not render proper service to the Complainant. First time the O.P. repair the mobile set and handed over to the Complainant but after some time the problem remain same but after several request the Opposite Party did not pay any heed towards the Complainant and bound the Complainant to take back the set in off mode. Complainant at first meet with the A/D Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice for mediation they tried but failed. Finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking relief and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Complainant has filed the present case on 10.03.2014 with one I.P.O. of Rs 100/- against the complaint value of Rs.23,500/-. Accordingly DF Case No. 15/2014 registered and after hearing of admission the case was admitted for further proceeding.
The notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. The O.P No. 1 appears through Ld. Agent but O.P. No. 2 did not appear and the case proceeded with Ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2.
The O.P. No.1 after appearance by filing W/V contested the present case contending inter-alia that the case is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties. The main contention of O.P’s is that just for illegal gain the Complainant has filed the present case. The Complainant purchased the said hand set on 06.10.2013 from a retail shop and came to the O.P. on 04.10.2013 i.e. just before two days of warranty period. Within that period there was no problem in the Mobile set and surprisingly before two days of expiry of warranty period the Complainant brought the set at the servicing center complaining Touch problem. The further contention of this answering Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party No. 1 received the said set by issuing a Job Card in favour of the Complainant and after repairing the defect, asked the Complainant to take back the set but the Complainant did not pay any heed and surprisingly the O.P. received a notice from the A.D. Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice. This O.P. appeared before the Mediation Table and narrated the actual fact and with the co-operation of the Assistance Director returned the set to the Complainant after proper verification and full satisfaction of the Complainant. After that the Complainant never comes before this O.P. This O.P. properly rendered the service for which it has no deficiency in service. Thus, the Complainant only to harass the O.P. No. 1 has filed the present case which is deserved to be dismissed with cost.
In the light of the contention of both the parties the following points necessarily came up for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is 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 Opposite Parties 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?
DECISSION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed/original documents in the record and heard argument of the both parties.
Point No.1.
From the discussion it is transparent that the complainant purchased a Mobile hand set manufactured by the Lava International Limited from Roy Plaza on payment of Rs. 3,000/- and the seller issued a Tax Invoice in favour of the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant is directly consumer of the seller from whom he bought the Mobile hand set but the Complainant has failed to make Seller as a necessary party in this case. It is transparent that the Complainant went to the O.P. No. 1 for servicing his Mobile Hand Set and the O.P. No. 1 issued a Job Sheet in the name of the Complainant as such the Complainant is also a Consumer of the O.P. No. 1.
Point No.2.
Both the complainant and O.P. No.1 are residents/carrying on business within the district of Cooch Behar. The complaint valued at Rs.23,500/- at valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
Point No.3.
In the instant case the Complainant has failed to produce the original documents but from the Xeroxed documents (without marking annexure) it appears that the Complainant purchased one Lava C-81 with Rs. 3,000/- from Roy Plaza on 06.10.2012 and he handed over the said set to the O.P. No. 1 on 04.10.2013 complaining Touch Problem.
It is the case of the Complainant that to face the Touch Problem he handed over the set to the Servicing Center for repairing but the servicing Center i. e, O.P. No. 1 returned the set without curing the defect and as such Complainant again bound to give the set to the O.P. No. 1, and lastly the O.P. No. 1 returned the set in “switch off mode”. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 the only contested party vehemently argued that the set in question was duly repaired but the Complainant only to squeeze the money has filed this case also the case is bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary party.
Evidently, the alleged mobile hand set was purchased by the Complainant from one retailer namely, Roy Plaza with payment of Rs. 3,000/-. In the Complaint petition as well as in Evidence on affidavit the Complainant prayed for return the price of the Mobile hand set which he paid at the time of purchase. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant purchased the set from Roy Plaza who is not made party in this case. Thus, the Forum is not in a position to pass any order against the said retailer and the case is proved bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
Besides, it is not proved that the O.P. No. 1 returned the set to the Complainant without repair/after proper repair. The copy of Mediation dated 30.07.2014 also speaks the same. Only one Job Card in Xerox appeared in the record wherein it is also not proved that the Complainant receive the set with full satisfaction. No original documents are produced by the parties to substantiate their statement. No deficiency in service of the O.P. No. 1 also proved.
In the light of the foregoing discussion we are constrained to hold that the Complainant miserably fails to prove his case.
Point No.4.
In view of discussions, herein before, we find no cogent ground to hold the O.P. No.1 liable, no deficiency service is proved. No relief granted in favour of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Complaint fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.15/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
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, as per rules.
