This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one Celkon Mobile vide IMEI No.911303950079422, manufactured by OP3 from the showroom of OP2 against Cash Memo No.15806 for a consideration of Rs.9,000/- only and complainant on 03-10-2013 the said Celkon Mobile abruptly stopped functioning and the matter was immediately reported to OP2 and as per their advice the said defective Celkon mobile phone was handed over to OP1, the authorized service centre in Kolkata for necessary repairing on 04-10-2013 vide work order No.CM13A70610054, but OP1 did not return the same till 29-03-2014 though complainant made several visits.  Against that complainant filed a complaint to the Assistant Director, Kolkata North R.O., Directorate of CA&FBP vide grievance No.918/2014 dated 29-03-2014 and on 16-04-2014 and they issued a notice to the OP1 and the same copy was forwarded to the complainant and for an amicable settlement of the dispute through mediation on 28-04-2014 and 06-05-2014 both appeared before the said Assistant Director, CA&FBP and the representative of OP1 handed over the said Celkon mobile phone to the complainant with some little problem like switch loose etc which was agreed by the said representative of OP1 to rectify within a short period after next visit of complainant at their service centre and also as per direction of the said Assistant Direction, CA&FBP the said representative of OP1 extended the warranty upto 06-12-2014.with the consent of the OP3.

          After several times the representative of complainant Santanu Manna visited for repairing of the said Celkon Mobile phone to OP1 but as because the OP1’s representative denied to receive the said set and on 19-05-2014 the said representative of the complainant visited to OP1 after taking previous appointment but due to power cut, the said representative of OP1 did not agree to receive the said Celkon mobile phone for repairing or rectifying showing reason that due to power cut they did not issue any computer generated service report to the complainant.

          On 21-05-2014 again representative of the complainant visited the OP1 who received the said phone issued a receipt narrating problem description as Wi-Fi connection problem and Bluetooth problem and T/P problem and requeste3d that represent of the complainant to put his signature on the ELS form but after obtaining signature of the said representative of the complainant OP1 suddenly noted that set liquid damage formed on PCB with black spotted and complainant raised objection for adding remark by hand of said representative and further submitted that when representative of the complainant made allegation by such writing OP abused him and drove her away and expressed liquid damage does not cover warranty.

          Subsequently, complainant on 24-05-2014 narrated the matter to the CA&FBP but they advised him to file proper case before this Forum on 04-06-2014.  Complainant sent an e-mail on 03-06-2014 at their registered e-mail address but till date they did not take any step and fact remains OPs sold a defective goods so, they must have to take the set free from all defects because after purchase complainant has been passing suffering several problems due to negligent, deficient manner of service complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile phone or for refund of the entire amount with 8 percent interest and compensation etc.

          On the other hand, OP1, Service Centre by filing a written version has submitted that the entire allegation is false and under any circumstances, it is not the liability of the service centre to replace the same and further submitted that the repair of the mobile set is not possible and permissible because item is not within the contract or scope of warranty.  But as a service centre they always gave him proper service and it is further submitted that last time when the set was given it was found that mobile set was found with liquid damages and black spot and that was noted and problem as alleged by the complainant relating to black spot and liquid damages does not come within the periphery of the extended warranty and in the earlier occasion mobile was properly serviced and repaired.  But complainant did not take delivery for some other reasons and subsequently by filing such complaint they take it and thereafter, again after extension of warranty the same fault remains, it was not stated by the complainant that he had been keeping the set with battery without any use and for which such a damage was detected and so, the complainant is not entitled to get any service from the service centre.

Decision with Reasons

On overall evaluation of the entire materials on record and also considering the report of the OP that Celkon handset is handed over for repairing and truth is that complainant kept the said handset fixed with battery without any use for many months or somehow it fell into water and it was admitted by the complainant before this Forum that he is not aware of the fact that the handset battery may cause any damage when not in use but it is not stated by the complainant.  After hearing the complaint and OP1 personally in this Forum and also handling the said set after removing the screws by the OP1 it is found that that handset has been damaged due to battery leakage and now, the handset cannot be repaired in view of the fact same are not covered by extended warranty and now, it is admitted by the complainant.   So, apparently, the fault on the part of the OP is proved but fact remains from the complaint that the complainant is a service holder working at Seckendrabud and he purchased the Celkon on 06-03-2013 and on 03-10-2013 he found problem for which it was deposited to the service centre on 04-10-2013 but from 04-10-2013 and till filing of the compliant before the CA&FBP on 29-03-2014 complainant did not receive it from the OP but he received it as per mediation order of the CA&FBP.  Thereafter, on 21-05-2014 again submitted the said mobile phone for some complications when OP reported that said liquid damage form on PCB with black spot and complainant has admitted that he was not aware of the fact that if set is not used in case the batter shall be removed but it is not doubt the fault of the complainant.

          After studying the entire complaint it is clear that complainant has not stated anywhere that after purchase it was kept idle along with battery for without any use but he has admitted that he worked at Seckendrabud and he purchased the said mobile set on 06-03-2013 and invariably the warranty period of manufacturer expired on 06-03-2014 and practically extended warranty was given as per direction of the CA&FBP and that period of warranty cannot be treated as a first work warranty, but said warranty shall be treated for the purpose of giving service to the complainant in respect of the set.  So, apparently, by getting extended warranty complainant cannot claim that from the date of purchase till date of expiry of first warranty on 05-03-2014 complainant suffered from any manufacturing defect.  Apparently, complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in respect of the said set but all damages were caused due to keeping the battery with the set but the service centre has alleged that that damage was caused due to water and probably the said set fell inside any water for which the damage was caused.  Considering all the fact and materials it is clear that this complainant had been using the said set at Seckendrabud but he has tried to say that set fixed with battery was unused in his house as there was no such instruction that battery shall be returned from set when it is not in use but we cannot rely upon such sort of argument of the complainant in respect of the above facts but we find that during warranty period practically there was no fault.  There was no manufacturing defect and in the above situation we find that the OP1, the service centre is not anyway liable to pay compensation or they are not in a position to give any replacement but only the manufacturer can give the same but manufacturer has not appeared and when there is no such material before hand to believe about the manufacturing defect then under any circumstances we cannot give any relief against the manufacturing authority i.e. OP3 even then considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are directing the OP3 to handover a new set when the present set is in the custody of the OP1 but value of the said set should be within range of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant and except that complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

          Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of finding.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP1 and ex parte against OP2 but without any cost and allowed ex parte against the OP3 without any cost.

          OP3 is directed to handover one new set valued at Rs.6,000/- or around the same to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be started against OP3 and in that case OP3 shall brought to book for charges of violation of the Forum’s order and they shall be imposed penalty for that and shall be directed to hand over a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.