C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/91
COMPLAINANT : Sisir Basak,
S/o Late Gokul Chandra Basak
Vill. Bethuadahari Station Road,
P.o Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
Vs –
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Prop. Nanda Kishor Agarwala
Gita Enterprize
Vill. Bethuadahari Bus Stand,
P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2) Prop. Turning Point Infosystem
Vill. Abhyudaya Sangha Club,
Building Station Road (Swarnamayee Market)
P.O. & P.S. Berhampur,
Dist. Murshidabad
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 7th February, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile set bearing model No. C-29001 from the OP No. 1 at a price of Rs. 1794/- on 29.02.08. After purchase, the mobile set was not functioning properly and some defects were detected. So on 18.09.08 he produced the set to the OP No. 2, being the service center for repair of the same and the OP No. 2 repaired it, but some defects were again detected, i.e., switches were not functioning properly and the battery charge came down within a short time. Thereafter, again on 24.05.10 the complainant met the OP No. 2 with a request to repair it regarding defects of switch and short stay of battery at which the OP No. 2 declined on the ground that production of the said mobile set was stopped by the Co. as a result of which servicing was not possible for him. The mobile set was purchased on 29.02.08 and it became defective within the warranty period. In spite of that the OP No. 2 being the authorized service centre of the Co. declined to repair the mobile set. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Notice was served upon the OP No. 1 & 2, but after receipt of the notice they did not appear before this Forum to contest this case. So the case is fixed for exparte hearing.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On the side of the complainant examination-in-chief is filed by him and some documents were filed. 'Annexure – 1’ is the cash memo issued by the OP No. 1 in favour of the complainant, which shows that on 29.02.08 the complainant purchased a mobile set No. C-29001 at a price of Rs. 1794/-. From the petition of complaint as well as from the examination-in-chief of PW-1 i.e., the complainant, it is available on record that since very beginning of purchase the mobile set was not working properly due to which on 18.09.08 he met the OP No. 2 who is the service centre for repair of the same and OP No. 2 repaired it. In spite of that repair the mobile set was not functioning properly and some further defects were also detected. The complainant has also stated in his petition that in June, 09 and Nov, 09 he met the OP No. 2 for repair of the same and thereafter on 14.03.10 and finally on 24.05.10. It is also revealed from the petition of complaint that on 14.03.10 and 24.05.10 the OP No. 2 expressed his inability to repair the same on the plea that the production of the said model of the mobile set was stopped by the Co. as a result of which it was not possible for him to repair the same. Complainant has also stated that he all along moved before the OP No. 2 with a request to repair the mobile set within the warranty period. The copy of the warranty period is filed by him vide 'Annexure – 2’ from which it is available that the purchase date was on 29.02.08 and the warranty period completed on 01.09.08. From the petition of complaint, we find that the OP No. 2 repaired the mobile set on 18.09.08 though the warranty period ended on 01.09.08. The complainant further demanded for repair of the mobile set after expiry of the warrantee period i.e., in June and Nov, 09, 14.03.10 and on 24.05.10 when the warrantee had no validity. Ld. lawyer for the complainant has also frankly submitted at the time of argument that all the dates i.e., June and Nov, 09, 14.03.10 and 24.05.10 fall outside of the warrantee period. So after hearing this argument of the ld. lawyer for the complainant and considering the 'Annexure – 1 & 2’, we find that within the warranty period the complainant never moved before the OP No. 2 for repairing of the mobile set. In spite of that the OP No. 2 repaired the set on 18.09.08 though the warrantee period expired on 01.09.08.
Therefore, in view of the above facts of this case our considered view is that the complainant has no locus standi to claim for repairing of the mobile set before the OP No. 2 after expiry of the warranty period. We do also hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 in not repairing the mobile set after expiry of the warrantee period. Hence the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. So he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/91 be and the same is dismissed on exparte against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
