This is a complaint made by one Pulkit Mutha S/o Sunil Kumar Mutha, residing at 22/4, N. B. lane, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700 026 against Samsung Service Centre, Divine Electro Solution, situated at 391/123, Prince Anwar Shah Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 068, praying for a declaration that OP is liable to repair the said mobile phone as the defect occurred within the warranty period, and for a direction upon the OP to repair the said mobile phone, i.d., pay the cost of the phone and damages amounting to Rs. 99,389.97 and cost of proceeding.

Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy E7 mobile phone on 05-03-2015 for his personal use.  The said mobile phone had full warranty of one year.  From 03-02-2016, there was no display in the said mobile phone for which the Complainant went to the OP for servicing the said mobile.  At the time of depositing the said mobile, it was noticed that there was some scratches on the camera glass as has been noted in the acknowledgement of service request. It was further informed that if any internal part found in broken condition, then there shall be no warranty.  It is stated that on the very same day, i.e., on 04-02-2016, one Sintu Baidhya, Customer Care Officer called up the Complainant to inform that screen of the mobile set needs to be changed which is very expensive.  However, the Complainant asked him to do the needful as the defect occurred within the warranty period.  The Complainant further noticed that there were lots of cracks on the screen and even the touch sensitivity was not working although according to the Complainant, prior to depositing the mobile with the OP, these cracks were not there and touch sensitivity was also working.  Subsequently, the Complainant visited the OP service centre several times to do the needful, but to no avail and the handset is still lying with the service centre. The Complainant, thereafter, served a notice on 11-02-2016 upon the OP with a request either to remove the defects or replace the same with a new handset and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.  However, the OP did not bother to respond to such notice. So, this case.

On the basis of above facts, complaint was admitted and notice served upon the OP, but it did not turn up.  So, the case was proceeded ex parte against it.

Decision with reasons

Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief and also filed written argument.  In the Affidavit-in-Chief, he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.

Complainant has filed photocopy of acknowledgement Service Request dated 04-02-2016 that contains warranty conditions.  Further, he has also filed photocopy of a letter which he wrote to the Officer-in-Charge, Jadavpur P.S.

Surprisingly, Complainant has not filed purchase bill/invoice – either in original or photocopy thereof, from where it could be ascertained what was the actual price of the mobile set and from where he purchased the same.  It is stated in paragraph 7 of the complaint petition that cost of the mobile set was Rs. 18,389.97.  It is unfortunate that he has not filed the requisite purchase receipt and withholding of such important piece of document invariably goes against him in terms of Section 114G of the Evidence Act.

Further, on perusal of the Xerox copy of the acknowledgment of the service request it appears that there is a mention - under broken then out of warranty camera glass scratch. 

In paragraph 7, Complainant has claimed Rs. 16,000/- as cost for arranging a substitute mobile phone.  This amount can only be claimed, if a person is able to establish that his mobile was with the service centre for sufficient long time. 

Accordingly, we are of view that Complainant failed to prove the allegation and so, he is not entitled to any relief.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/184/2016 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP, but without any order as to costs.