JUDGEMENT

          Complainant Abdur Rauf Mallick by filing this complaint has submitted that his son Rimo Mallick purchased a NOKIA X 7 Mobile Phone on 28.09.2011 for Rs. 20,000/- vide Invoice No. 1112/MG/T/243 dated 28.09.2011 from M/s LETS Connect-op no.2.  But after purchase it was caused several problems and so ops were contacted for redressal and as per their advice the set was ultimately handed over to the service center Everest Mobi Care-the op no.3 on 19.11.2011.

          Practically it was defective set for which from the very beginning it was handed over for repair just after one and half months of purchase and the set was so defective that it was not within their reach for repair and the service center told the same and was sent to Delhi for repair and they told that it would take some 12 days to get it repaired and they issued the complainant a service job sheet vide No. 290504886/111119/43 dated 19.11.2011.  Somehow the defective set was repaired but same problem again faced by the complainant on 01.09.2012 and for which op company and service center were contacted with them but they tried to avoid the matter and did not pay any heed to the complainant.

          Subsequently he was advised to contact with the op service center for redressal.  Thereafter complainant contacted with the op, but they refused to repair the same on the plea that the warrantee period is expired and they have their no responsibility to send the set repaired.  When complainant reported that the date of purchase was on 28.09.2011, so the warranty period was up to 27.09.2012.  But op service center submitted that the IMEI Nos of the particular set is different from the receipt as produced by the complainant.  So, complainant was anxious about that.  But truth is that on earlier occasion the same set was repaired by the ops and in the situation complainant asked the ops for replacing of the same or refund of money, but they refused and ultimately the matter was placed before CA Deptt., Govt. of West Bengal on 14.09.2012 for redressal mediation meeting was convened on 11.06.2013, but op did not appear and in the above situation for proper redressal the present complaint is filed.

          On the other hand op LETS Connect by filing a written version submitted that complainant is not a consumer and he did not purchase the same but one Rimo Maullick purchased the same on 28.09.2012.  But complainant never produced the purchased NOKIA Set being IMEI No. 356257041433141.  But one Rimo Maullick appeared before service center of the said set of Everest Mobi Care company of Nokia and IMEI No. 356257040706919 on 19.11.2011but not the present disputed Nokia handset and that was repaired and handed over to Rimo Maullick and in the said certificate of job sheet Rimo Maullcik singed but not the present complainant and moreover complainant failed to produce the present mobile handset having such IMEI No.  So there was no fault on the part of the op or the service center and in fact op no.2 has no liability and there is no responsibility on the part of the op to refund money or to replace the same.

          Whereas op’s authorized Nokia Service Center by filing written version submitted that personally that complainant purchased the Nokia set along with a purchase receipt dated 28.09.2011 for repair.  When it was found that in the receipt IMEI No. is noted 35625741433141 whereas the set which was produced before the service center, it was found that its IMEI No. is 356257040706919.  But complainant failed to produce any purchase receipt in respect of the second set having the said IMEI No. for which service center did not attend the same and did not pay any heed and if complainant would be able to produce the Nokia X-7 having IMEI No. 356257041433141 in that case invariably the Nokia Service Center authority must have to repair it and give him such relief but complainant has failed to produce the same.

          Moreover he produced the very damaged, broken set having IMEI No. 356257040706919 and for which it could not be repaired and practically there was no laches on the part of the op and for which they prayed for dismissal of this case.

                                                           Decision with reasons

          On hearing the complainant and also the ops and their Ld. Lawyers and after studying the complaint and the written versions also relying upon the complainant’s own purchase receipt in respect of one Nokia set dated 28.09.2011, it is found that complainant did not purchase it but one Rimo Maullick purchased it and the IMEI No. of the Nokia set was 356257041433141.  But anyhow complainant has failed to produce that Nokia set having the said IMEI No.  But from one certificate of Job sheet issued by the authorized service center of the Nokia on 19.11.2011, it is found that one Rimo Maullick placed one Nokia set having IMEI No. 356257040706919 for repairing and it was repaired.

          But at the time of repairing Rimo Maullick did not give any purchase proof that Rimo Maullick went to service center on 19.11.2011 along with one Nokia Mobile set having IMEI No. 356257040706919 and service provider was Airtel.  But the present disputed purchased handset item having IMEI No. 356257041433141 was not placed before the service center for repairing on 19.11.2011 as claimed by the complainant.  So, it is apparently clear that complainant has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that after purchase of the present disputed Nokia Mobile hand set having IMEI No. 356257041433141 was placed before the service center for any sort of repairing or by his son Rimo Maullick and their set was never produced before service center or to the ops for any purpose.

          On the contrary it is proved from the certificates as produced by the complainant that his son Rimo Maullick for repairing one mobile handset having IMEI No. 356257040706919 for repairing on 19.11.2011 and handed over to his son and his son’s signature is there.  Then it is clear that complainant claimed that son’s mobile was placed for repairing after purchasing from op LETS Connect is not at all proved.   Further the mobile set as produced by the complainant before this Forum that it was found that it was completely damaged mobile having cracks on the face and some other compressed area and same bears IMEI No. 356257040706919 and after consulting the complainant’s own documents of purchase, it is found that the set in respect of which the complainant claimed that it was purchased by his son and it is not proved by any cogent document and in support of that physically produced the mobile handset no document is produced by the complainant, chance of exchange of the internal system during one mobile to another mobile is being made legally by several purchasers but it is not the seller and fact remains in this case something may be happened for which his son is outside the picture and after appear to rescue his son but from the complainant’s own document it is found that there are two manipulate sheets in their use one having IMEI No. 35627040706919 and another IMEI No. 356257041433141.  But the later handset of mobile is not produced before this Forum, no other previous papers for repairing for purchase on 28.09.2011 and practically complainant has proved that his son has two mobile sets having 2 IMEI Nos.  But in respect of which the claim is made is not produced before this Forum and has not been further placed before ops but a second set having IMEI No. 356257040706919 is produced before this Forum.  But in respect of that there is no paper that it was purchased from op no.2 and there was some defect.

          But ultimately after handling the said set, it is clear that it is completely damaged by the user of the said mobile set and there is no question of giving any chance to the complainant for repairing that mobile set having IMEI No. 356257040706919 and in view of the above circumstances we have gathered that complainant has failed to prove that the negligent and deficient manner of service and by adopting unfair path in this regard by the ops and fact remains complainant has failed to prove any defect in respect of the purchase item Nokia X-7 dated 28.09.2011 having IMEI No. 356257041433141 and for which the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                                   ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op but without any cost.