The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Proprietor of M/s. VIDEOZONE LTD., Vivekananda Marg, Balasore and O.P No.2 is Proprietor of M/s. SRILAXMI SERVICE CENTER, Padhunapada, Balasore. 

                    1. The Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased one Sony Xperia E-4/DS Colour mobile from the O.P No.1 on 21.10.2015, with a consideration amount of Rs.8,990/- (Rupees Eight thousand Nine hundred ninety only), with one year warranty. The Complainant had been to O.P No.2 on 26.07.2016 for repair of his mobile as per advice of O.P No.1, since the Complainant found some problems with the above said handset on 25.07.2016. The O.P No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.5,473/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred seventy three only) from the Complainant for repairing charges of the defective mobile. The O.P No.2 did not hand over the mobile to the Complainant rather, they kept the same handset in their custody till today. It is needless to say the same mobile is within the warranty period. Thus, the Complainant filed this case. Prayer for not to demand a sum of Rs.5,473/- as charged by the O.P No.2 along with compensation and cost of litigation.

                    2. Both the O.Ps did not prefer to appear in this case though sufficient opportunities were given to them, hence they are set ex-parte on 01.03.2017.

                    3. On perusal of the documents available in the case record and the documents filed by the Complainant, it is noticed that:-

(i) The Complainant has filed the copy of estimate dt.26.07.2016 signed by one Sisira Mohapatra, where the O.Ps have estimated Rs.5,473.48 ps. solely on preliminary inspection of set. In warranty category “Warranty void” is revealed by the O.P No.2, which is acknowledged by one ‘Sisira Mohapatra’, on behalf of the Complainant.

(ii) The Complainant has not filed copy of ‘Advocate notice’ as admitted in para-4 of the Complainant petition.

(iii) No warranty card is available during hearing. But, later the Advocate on behalf of the Complainant has filed a warranty certificate, but he has not filed copy of terms and conditions of Sony warranty in the user manual provided with the product.   

                        So, after hearing the Complainant’s Advocate & going through the materials available and in absence of any terms and conditions of warranty card, when estimate of the O.Ps available in the record discloses that the warranty is void and when it is no where disputed, the Complainant has no right to claim any relief towards unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, for which this Consumer Case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered:-  

                                                     O R D E R

                        The Consumer Case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.Ps.

                        Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 16th day of March, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.