1. The petition of the complainant in the in the case no.CC/321/2020 was examined.

2. The gist of the complaint as averred is that the complainant approached the OP’s at their service centre to get her I-Mac device repaired when a hand written receipt dated 08.10.2020 was provided to her with mention that the device had not been working and requiring software updation. The complainant received a e mail on 09.10.2020 by which a ticket number was intimated by the OPs.  By another mail, it was intimated by the OP to complainant about services which includes that the mode of communication by the service provider are e-mail and live chat services and the OPs provide same day service. A receipt was issued by the OPs for Rs. 500/- by cash mentioning the job ticket number on account of inspection charges and requirement of software upgradation. However the complainant declined their final inspection of the device by the OPs as they added up requirement of hardware inspection. In the terms and conditions communicated in email, the inspection charge was mentioned as Rs. 500/- but the same, while mentioning in words, was written as ‘two fifty rupees’. The complainant claimed about anomaly in inspection of the device done. The IMEI number etc were also kept blank in the said hand written challan. The OPs have not issued any GST receipt on their cash receipt dated 08.10.2020. After taking up these issues, the Ops manhandled the complainant’s representative.
3. As the case had been running ex-parte due to non-appearance of the OPs hence the entire matter was examined on its merit based on available records and documents.
4. The main points for determination of this case are that (i) whether the complainant of services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs or not and (iii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for or not. The decisions with reasons on all the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
5. It is found that the OPs have issued a cash receipt of Rs. 500/- in favour of complainant for delivering services with respect to repair of her electronic product. Hence the Complainant is a Consumer under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, falling under the pecuniary and geographical jurisdiction of this forum.
6. The document dated 08.10.2020 as exhibited by the complainant acknowledging the receipt of the device is mentioned about it’s non-working condition requiring software updation was duly acknowledged by complainant / representative without any comments therein. This is a pre-formatted document, spaces of which are duly filled up with descriptions of items that the complainant has accepted by putting signature. Subsequently a system driven Ticket or docket number was generated by the service provider OPs after logging in the device details in their system and was communicated to the complainant vide e-mail dated 09.10.2020. So, the mode of communication to customers by e-mail was also adhered to. A receipt was issued by the OPs mentioning the same job ticket number against receipt of a payment of Rs. 500/- on account of inspection charges when they recorded that the customer i.e. the complainant declined their final inspection of the device for checking hardware and hence only software and bios could be inspected. The terms and conditions as per annexure D included the rate of inspection charges as ‘Rs. 500/- ’ but while mentioning the amount in words, the same was written as ‘two fifty rupees’ which appears to be unintentional as because the documents states the inspection charge as Rs.500/- while mentioning in numericals. The hand written challan appears to be bona fide since the ticket no. in the job has been reaffirmed and communicated to the complainant by e-mail after logging in the requisite data in the system. The claim of the complainant that no inspection of the device done, is also not adequately substantiated by any means. The mere non-mentioning of IMEI no in the hand written challan is not also sufficiently established for any malafide reason as because the same has subsequently been confirmed vide e-mail dated 09.10.2020 generated through systems. After completion of initial inspection for software and bios, further requirement of inspection of hardware arose as evident from the records exhibited by complainant, which they refused.  As per record, the OPs have not issued any GST receipt on 08.10.2020 which depends that whether the organisation of the OP is mandatorily required to be registered under GST or not. GST registration is not required for businesses whose turnover does not exceed 20 lac annually under service provider category.  Being in the service industry in case the organisation of the OPs turnover has not reached the threshold amount of 20 Lac per annum then the compulsion to issue a GST invoice remains conditional and in this matter, there is nothing available on record and hence can’t be concluded. The allegation of manhandling is also not coming within the scope of the consumer forum to adjudicate which is a matter of law and order and the complainant has not put up anything on record about their approach to local authorities, if any.
7. Therefore all the points of the complainant about claiming inspection charges for Rs. 500/- and not providing services or lack of services extended by the OPs could not be established adequately.

Accordingly going by the aforesaid examination of the case in hand it is ordered that the case no.CC/321/2020 is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances of application/petition there is no other element as to cost.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

 [HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER