Judgment dated 15-06-2016

            This is a Complainant made by one Smt. Tithi Ghosh wife of Debasish Ghosh and daughter of Tushar Kanti Bor against M/s. Anannaya Infotel, 44, Shyama Pally, Jadavpur under Jadavpur P.S. and Karma Enterprise, 85, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Jadavpur praying for refund of the price of mobile phone paid by Complainant alternatively replacement of the mobile phone and compensation with litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased mobile phone from Karma Enterprise after paying a price of Rs.3,000/- on 25-06-2015. On 7-07-2015 the mobile phone stopped working and so Complainant informed Anannaya Infotel. She deposited the mobile phone on 8-07-2015 where she was asked to attend at service centre on 9-07-2015 where she was informed that liquid has passed inside the mobile and so that is not covered under warranty.

            Thereafter he went to Mirza Ghalib Street where also a meeting took place and it was observed that phone in dispute has got a liquid damage which is not covered under warranty. She was advised to file this case.

            On the basis of above facts complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the OP. But they did not appear. So the case was heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief. On perusal of which it appears that it is a hand written content and there is no swear in affidavit either by the Complainant or even by the father of the Complainant. Since there is no affidavit sworn in of the facts mentioned in alleged affidavit-in-chief. As such facts mentioned here creates suspicion.

            On perusal of document it appears that Xerox copy of a paper (job sheet) has been filed where it is clearly stated that warranty does not cover due to liquid passing in the LCD of the mobile. Complainant did not inform this fact to the manufacturer as because Xerox copy of the warranty card clearly reveals that warranty does not extend any damage due to any liquid entering into the hand set for any reason, negligence, misuse, accident and disaster.

            Though OPs did not appear to contest the allegations of the complaint; the law is settled that Complainant has to prove the facts of the complaint for getting any relief. In the present case complaint has also not been filed after swearing in affidavit. This makes it clear that Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

            CC/17/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.