BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 10 of 2013
Sri Ajay Dey, ……………………………………………………….. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Nokia Care Centre,
S.P Road, Shillongpatty, Silchar
Dist. Cachar, Assam………………………………………………… Opp. Party
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Subhash Acharjee, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Tito Debroy, Advocate for the O.P.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 06-08-2013
Date of written argument……………… 31-10-2015, 01-09-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 23-10-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- Sri Ajay Dey brought this instant case against Nokia Care Centre, Shillongpatty, Silchar for award of compensation because his Nokia hand set ‘C 601’ was not repaired by the O.P later inspite of issuing a job sheet.
- He brought the fact as below:-
Touch screen of his Nokia hand set ‘C-601’ went out of order after expiry of warrantee period. Accordingly, he approached the O.P on 07-09-2012 for repairing. The O.P issued job sheet No. 353759040352605 dated 07-09-2012 with approximate repairing cost of Rs.4,000/- . The date of delivery of repaired set was fixed on 20-11-2012 but failed to deliver the repaired hand set. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice but the O.P did not give any reply.
- The O.P submitted W/S. In the W/S stated inter-alia that the set is not repairable and accordingly, asked the complainant to take back but the complainant is not taking back the set.
- During hearing, the complainant deposed on oath. The O.P also examined Tapash Mahanta. Perused the written argument of both sides’ counsels and perused the evidence on record.
- In this case, it is admitted fact that the mobile hand set which was kept under custody of the O.P for repairing is not within the warrantee period. Nevertheless, the set handed over to Authorize Service Centre for repair. The estimate repairing charge is fixed for Rs.4,000/- . The amount of charge has not been paid but mentioned in the job sheet. So, the complainant is a consumer, falling under section 2(d) (II) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because as per job sheet system of payment of repairing charge is at the time of delivery of repaired hand set. So, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
- But from evidence on record, it is of opinion that the O.P did not repair the hand set because it is un-repairable. The complainant did not agree with the opinion of the authority of the O.P but at the same time did not take any appropriate step to establish any fact that the set is very much repairable and the O.P intentionally and negligently kept the hand set in custody without repairing. Thus, in this case, we do not find any convincing material to conclude that the O.P causes disservice to the complainant.
- Hence, the complainant is not entitled any relief. Accordingly, this case is dismissed on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 23rd day of October, 2017.
