IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 173/08 DATED 18-07-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr.P.Sathya, NO.1, Paramahamsa Road, Yadavagiri, Mysore-570020.<br /> (By Sri.Venkata Raje Urs., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Feroz, M/s Sangeetha Mobile Shop, No.2892:1, D-1:1, 11th Cross, Kalidasa Road, V.V.Puram, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore-570002<br /> 2. Mr.Joseph, Motorolla Ucom Technologies Pvt. Ltd., NO.215:16, K.N.M. Complex, (Ground Floor), 28th Cross, 2nd Block, Rajajinagara, Bangalore-560010.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> 3. Mr.Vaseem, Motorolla Ucom Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mobile Company Centre, A-26, B-1, Extention Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110004.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 13.06.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 18.07.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has presented this complaint through his authorised agent against the Opposite parties with his grievance that he had purchased a mobile telephone from first Opposite party on 20.04.2007. After using it for 6 months, the set used to get switched off by itself then he gave it to first Opposite party for repair who kept it for one month for repair and returned telling to have repaired it, but the problem repeated again. He approached the first Opposite party who took the set telling that he will send it to Bangalore for repair that when he returned after another month, but returned without any repair, and that he demanded for job card, the first Opposite party told him that they do not have the job card. When the problem in the mobile set continued he took the address of Bangalore service station of the company from the first Opposite party and gave it for repair at Bangalore on 10.04.2008 who said to had repaired, but the problem continued. Then he approached the service center of Bangalore through phone who directed him to approach the first Opposite party. He again approached the first Opposite party on 15.04.2008 who took some time for repairing, then they told him that the warranty period for the set has expired and that he has to pay repair charges. That the mobile set had one year of warranty that he had given the set for repair within the warranty, period. But, it is not repaired and therefore has prayed for direction to get him the relief.<br /> 2. This Forum as considering the grievance of the complainant had ordered issue of notice to first and second Opposite parties only who are duly served, but remained absent as such are set exparte.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the authorised representative of the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence besides producing the receipt for having purchased the mobile set from first Opposite party and to job cards dated 10.04.2008 and 15.04.2008. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.<br /> 4. The claim of the complainant that he had purchased a mobile telephone from first Opposite party on 20.04.2007 is proved by the bill he has produced and also through his affidavit evidence. The complainant has further contended that after using the mobile set in about 6 months it used it get off on its own, therefore he had given it for repair to first Opposite party and thereafter second Opposite party who have demanded for payment of repair charges on the ground that warranty period has expired.<br /> 5. The complainant himself has in the first coloumn of the prayer of the complaint, admitted that the mobile set had one year warranty. The complainant in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has stated that he had given the mobile set for repair within the warranty period. But absolutely he has not produced any documents to prove in this mobile set giving trouble within the warranty period or in this complainant having had given that set to any of the Opposite parties for repair within the warranty period. The complainant neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit evidence has come out as to the date, month and year on which the mobile set started giving problem. he has also not given the date, month and year as to when he had handed over the set to first Opposite party for repair and when that first Opposite party returned that mobile after the purported repair. He has also not produced any other documents in having had given that mobile set for repair within the period of one year. But, an attempt is made by the complainant to say as if the first Opposite parties had told him that they do not have job cards, and therefore he did not issue but that would not have absolved the Opposite parties from issuing an acknowledgement or some document for having taken the set for repair, but, the complainant should have demanded for it. The complainant thus it is found that except the bear allegation that the set developed problem within one year and he had given it for repair within a period of one year he has not placed any acceptable documents to substantiate it. The complainant has only produced the job cards dated 10.04.2008 under which the mobile set was given for repair and was returned on the same day after the repair and another job card dated 15.04.2008. Except these documents, the complainant has not produced any other piece of evidence to prove that he had given the set for repair within the warranty period of 12 months, therefore if we look at these job card and evidence of the complainant it is clear that the set was given for repair after expiry of 12 months from the date of purchase. Therefore, the Opposite parties are not obliged to effect repairs to the mobile set free of cost. As such, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency against first and second Opposite parties in they having had demanded the cost of repair, as such the complaint in our view is devoid of merits, and the same is liable to dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 18th July 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />