Orissa

Cuttak

CC/65/2020

Manesh Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.65/2020

          Sri Manesh Kumar Nayak,

           S/O: Sri Bhubaneswar Nayak,

           Resident of At:Pilgrim Road,

           P.O:College Square,Dist:Cuttack-753003,

           Odisha.                                                                                  ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.      The Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

                   At: 8^th Floor,DLF Center,Sansad Marg

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.      The Proprietor,

M/s. Nigam International, Infront of Ravenshaw University,

At/PO:Colele Square,Dist:Cuttack-753003,

                  Odisha

 

3.      The Proprietor, The SAMSUNG Authorised Service Center,

                       At:Plot No.2072/3595,Opp. JMG Showroom,

                          MahatabRoad,Dist:Cuttck,Odisha                                         ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    02.09.2020

Date of Order:  20.03.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Self.

For the O.Psno.1 & 3            :    Mr. K.C.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2:                          Mr.M.B.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                        

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a mobile phone set on 4.8.2019 for a price of Rs.15,490/- from the O.Ps which was of model Galaxy A-30 and it had warranty for 12 months.  On 29.7.2020 morning the complainant found his new mobile phone set becoming very hot for which he had to switch off the said mobile phone set immediately.  On 1.8.20 he approached the O.P no.2 but he refused to entertain his grievance regarding the mobile phone set.  However, O.P no.3 had taken the mobile phone of the complainant for repair.  On 3.8.20 the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards the repairing cost of the said mobile phone set as because the mother board of the said mobile phone set was to be replaced.  Even though the complainant did not prefer to repair the same, he had to bear a cost of Rs.177/- towards the service charges and he was informed that his mobile phone set was out of warranty for which he was required to pay for the parts as well as for the repairing.  The complainant accordingly had informed the other O.Ps regarding his mobile phone set and had requested them either to repair it or to refund the price of it.  On 4.8.20 O.P no.3 had taken the original bill of the said mobile phone set and Aadhar card copy of the complainant.  On 12.8.20 he had tried to contact the O.Ps as regards to the repair of his mobile phone set.  Till 31.8.20 as per the Website report, “no result” was there towards of his mobile phone set.  Ultimately being thoroughly harassed the complainant had to file this case against the O.Ps seeking from them the price of the mobile phone set to the tune of Rs.15,490/-, another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards punitive damages, and further a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for product liability and also further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  He has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, though all of them have contested this case, O.Ps no.1 & 3 have jointly filed their written version whereas O.P no.2 has filed his separate written version.

          From the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 3 as made out; according to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed as because the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and had rather suppressed material facts. According to O.Ps no.1 & 3, the complainant had filed xerox copy of the invoice whereas he has manipulated the date of purchase of his mobile phone set in order to mislead this Commission.  According to the job sheet of the said mobile phone set, the date of purchase was on 10.7.2019 and in the said job sheet the complainant had signed on 1.8.2020.  By then, the mobile phone set was out of warranty and accordingly on 3.8.20 he was informed to pay the repairing cost of Rs.8000/-.  Thus, according to them the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

          O.P no.2 through his written version has also stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and accordingly he has prayed to dismiss the complainant petition as filed.

          The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit which when perused is noticed to be a reiteration of the averments as made by him in his complaint petition.

3.Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in this case.

                     i.  Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of

     the O.Ps  and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

                     iii .Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by

him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

As it appears here in this case, there is a dispute regarding the purchase of the mobile phone set by the complainant.  According to the complainant, he had purchased his mobile phone set on 4.8.2019 by paying a price of Rs.15,490/-.  The said mobile phone set became very hot on 29.7.20 for which he had taken it to the O.Ps for its repair on 1.8.2020.  To the contrary, O.Ps no.1 & 3 through their written version have urged that the mobile phone set of the complainant was purchased on 10.7.2019 and they allege that the complainant by submitting xerox copy of the invoice of the said mobile phone has manipulated the date of purchase therein.  On perusal of the said disputed copy of invoice which is Annexure-1 and is available in the case record together with the complaint petition of the complainant, it is noticed that the same reflects the signature of the complainant with the price of Rs.15,490/- of mobile phone as purchased by him on 4.8.2019 of Galaxy A-30 of Samsung.  O.Ps no.1 & 3 allege that this date of purchase as available in the copy of the invoice has been manipulated by the complainant and according to them the said mobile phone set was purchased by the complainant on 10.7.19.  On perusal of Annexure-3 which is the copy of the job card by virtue of which the mobile phone set of the complainant was received by O.P no.3 for its repair on 1.8.2020.  The said copy of the job card has been duly signed by the complainant at the specific place therein which is not disputed by the complainant.  The said copy of job card vide Annexure-3 when perused minutely, it is noticed that infact the purchase date of the mobile phone set of the complainant has been reflected to be 10.7.19 and by signing the said job card, it is understood that the complainant was well aware about the said date of purchase of his mobile phone set as mentioned therein.  Moreso, either parties were directed vide order dt.13.1.23 to file original cash memo in order to apprise this Commission as regards to the actual date of purchase of the alleged mobile phone set of the complainant but quite strangely the complainant who is to prove his case properly has not filed the same,  In the absence of the said original document, as per the copy of the job card, it is noticedthat the purchase date of the mobile phone set  of the complainant is reflected as 10.7.19 to which the complainant ofcourse admits by signing the said job card.  Thus the allegation as made by O.Ps that the complainant has manipulated the date of purchase in the tax invoice vide Annexure-1 which is copy of the said tax invoice, reflecting the consideration amount of the mobile phone set to be of Rs.15,490/- and the date of purchase to be 4.8.2019 at 2.30 p.m cannot be ruled out  in absence of the original cash memo being not filed by the complainant. The complainant a lawyer by profession when he had signed the job card, he admits all the contents therein alongwith the date of purchase as reflected to be 10.7.19 in respect of his mobile phone set which was given by him to O.P no.3 for repair.  Thus, when the date of purchase is 10.7.19 obviously the warranty period of 12 months do not cover the date of handing over the mobile phone set to O.P no.3 on 1.8.19 for it’s repair and when the said mobile phone set is out of warranty by asking for it’s repair charges and price for the parts by the O.P no.3to the tune of Rs.8000/- cannot be said to be illegal.  Accordingly, this Commission do not find any deficiency in the service of the O.Ps and accordingly we cannot also conclude that the O.Ps have practised unfair trade.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps.  and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                  Member