Date of filing: 12.06.2018 Date of disposal: 30.04.2019
Complainant: Samir Kumar Patra, S/o. Late Bhim Chandra Patra, resident of 1B/3, Marcony Avenue, B Zone, Durgapur, District: Paschim Bardhaman, West Bardhaman, PIN – 713 205.
Opposite Party: SAMSUNG Service Centre, Unique Service, represented by its Manager, having its office at A/6, Nandalal Bithi, Central P.A., Post Office & Police Station: Durgapur, District: Paschim Bardhaman, Pin – 713 216.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
The present application under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by Samir Kr. Patra of 1B/3, Marcony Avenue, B Zone, Durgapur, Dist: Paschim Bardhaman against Op, namely, Samsung Service Centre, Unique Service for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The complainant stated that he purchased a mobile when he was posted at Delhi for his official purpose, bearing model No. SM-N9002WEINU, Serial No. RFIDN39A27L (358001062191464) on 25.04.2015 through on line and in the month of December 2015 the said mobile phone create some problem in respect of his display then the complainant made contact with OP who is the authorized service centre of Samsung India Ltd. on 07.01.2016 for repairing and OP issued a job sheet after receiving the mobile on the same date bearing bill No. 4207510174 and also stated to the complainant that they will repair the said phone against the labour cost as the mobile set was under warranty and further stated that it will take some time as they have to bring the display from Kolkata office.
Under such circumstances the complainant returned on that day and again visited the said office on 08.01.2016 when he came to learn from the OP that one more date is required for repair, again he visited the office of OP on 09.01.2016 and further on 19.01.2016 when the OP wanted to return the mobile phone without any repairing and informed the complainant that they are not able to repair the said phone as the mobile phone is not under warranty.
Complainant further alleged that at that time the OP handed over another copy of job sheet with some endorsement by pen and then the complainant came to learn that OP made an endorsement of another serial No. i.e. 35802108932007 and further incorporated the date of purchase i.e. on 27.10.2015.
The complainant further alleged that he learnt from the OP that the mother board of the phone should be replaced.
Further an amount of Rs. 8,000=00 is required for the replacement of motherboard.
The complainant also alleged that after hearing the same from the OP he refused to pay any amount to the OP as this was within warranty and he only agreed to pay labour charge.
The complainant further stated that he refused to pay any charge as the OP has done unfair trade practice by manipulating the IMEI number of the said phone and also refused to hand over any documents regarding status of the phone.
The complainant also alleged that if he purchased the mobile phone dated 27.10.2015 then also the mobile phone was under warranty up to 26.10.2016. The complainant further alleged that he is a bonafide consumer of the OP –manufacturer and he never done any act of detrimental to the interest of the OP but the conduct of the OP upon the complainant shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by manipulating the IMEI number of the phone and the date of purchase in the job sheet and at the same time in the first job sheet OP mentioned (in the first job sheet) that there is defect in display but informed that the mother board is require to be replaced though they were fully aware that the said mobile phone was under warranty but just to shift their liability they manipulate the IMEI number and the date of purchase and for such behavior the complainant compelled to suffer huge mental pain and agony.
The cause of action arose on and from 07.01.2016 and the same was continued till the date when OP denied or disputed the claim.
It appears from the record that after filing the present application under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 the complainant has delivered summons upon the OP and from the track report it is found that the summon/notice have been properly delivered upon the OP on 23.06.2016 and for that the date was fixed for filing written version on behalf of OP but the OP neither appeared nor filed any written version to contest the case and as such the case fixed for ex parte hearing against the OP.
Now point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any award as per claim application or not.
-: Decision with reasons :-
To prove the claim application the complainant is not able to produce any documents to show that he is a bonafide consumer under the OP by purchasing mobile phone/on the ground that he lost the original bill at that time when he shifted from Delhi to his residential house i.e., 1B/13, Marcony Avenue, B Zone, Durgapur within district Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal.
Complainant adduced his evidence on affidavit where he admitted that he purchased a mobile bearing model No. SM-N9002WEINU, Serial No. RFIDN39A27L (358001062191464) on 25.04.2015 manufactured by Samsung India Ltd. through on line, where the OP is an authorized service centre. The complainant also stated that the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Delhi where he was posted then and during the period for shifting from Delhi to his residential house then he lost the bill of the said phone. The complainant further admitted that on December 2015 the said phone started to create problem in respect of its display and for that he went to the office of the OP for repairing his phone on 07.01.2016 and the OP also issued a job sheet at the time after receiving the mobile from him on 07.01.2016 when the OP told him that they will repair the said phone against labour cost only as the mobile set was under warranty at that time and thereafter he visited the office of OP on several times for returned the same with repair and thereafter on 19.01.2016 when the complainant again went to the office of OP then he came to know that the OP wants to return the mobile without any repairing and further came to know that the mobile phone was not under warranty and on that day the OP also handed over another copy of job sheet to the complainant after making some endorsement and on perusing the said job sheet the complainant came to learn that the OP made an endorsement of another serial number and from the both job sheet it is clear that in the previous job sheet the OP told the complainant that the mobile was under full warranty and at that time it was informed him that OP had already replaced the display but the mother board of the phone should be replaced and for the said replacement an amount of Rs. 8,000=00 is required.
The complainant further stated through evidence that the OP has done unfair trade practice by manipulating the IMEI number of the said phone as well as refused to hand over documents regarding status of the phone and also refused to repair the mobile phone.
The complainant further stated that the OP was fully aware that the mobile phone was under warranty but only for shifting their liability they manipulate the IMEI number and date of purchase.
Now it appears that the complainant prayed relief for repairing the mobile phone bearing model No. SM-N9002WEINU, Serial No. RFIDN39A27L (358001062191464) purchased on 25.04.2015 through on-line whereas according to the documents issued by OP produced by the complainant shows that the serial number of the said phone is 35802105932000 and the date of purchase is 27.10.201, instead of 25.04.2015. But practically it appears from the said documents that the date of purchase is 27.10.2015 and last digit of the year is not legible when according to the complainant date of purchase was 25.04.2015. So the present Forum failed to understand as to why the complainant stated through evidence that in the said documents according to column of purchased date it was incorporated 27.10.2015. So the evidence of the complainant i.e. if the purchased date is 27.10.2015 then also the mobile is under warranty up to 26.10.2016 but only for harassing him the OP refused to repair the mobile phone is nothing but vague allegation against the OP.
Besides that, the complainant is failed to produce any documents for his purchased mobile on the ground that he misplaced the same during the period of his transfer from Delhi to his residence, but according to law he had ample opportunity to collect duplicate documents by filing an application from Samsung India Ltd. from whom he purchased the same. But as it appears that the complainant taken no step for duplicate documents to show his bonafide claim, so automatically question arises in the mind of present Forum that is what is the actual reason for which the complainant fails to take steps for documents when according to Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 a consumer can only able to file such type of claim application before the Consumer Forum.
Furthermore, it is also clear that the complainant never challenged the date of purchase as well as IMEI number as issued by the OP through job sheet and also take no steps to prove whether the number as well as the date of purchase issued by them were correct or the date of purchase as well as the IMEI number as per his claim application are correct or not.
So accordingly the conduct and attitude of the complainant clearly shows that he did not appear before this Consumer Forum with clean hands and at the same time he is totally failed to prove his allegation by producing proper documents as it appears that he failed to fulfill the first and foremost criteria of Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 i.e. he is a bonafide consumer in respect of the mobile set for which he compelled to lodge the present complaint against the OP.
So the claim application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 93/2018 filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP. There is no order as to costs.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman DCDRF,Purba Bardhaman
