By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The case of complainant is that she purchased a mobile phone worth Rs. 18,000/- from the opposite party shop situate at Tirur on 14/04/2018. But in the warranty card the shop name was shown as Galaxy smart cafe, Kochukodiyli complex opposite little flower school, Janathapadi Nilambur. The phone is not working. The complainant contacted opposite party shop at Tirur but they did not repair the mobile phone not even prepared to return the mobile phone entrusted for repair. The opposite party demanded a signed white paper to return the mobile phone. Hence the prayer of the complainant is that to refund the value of mobile phone and also compensation of 10,000/- rupees along with cost.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and they entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied the averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party submitted that he is running a service centre at Tirur since 1996. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainant that she purchased mobile phone from the opposite party on 14/04/2018 in the absence of document. The document produced reveals that she purchased the same on 07/04/2018 from Galaxy Smart Cafe Kochukudiyil complex, Janathapadi, Nilambur. So, it is not certain from which shop mobile phone is purchased. The complainant purchased mobile phone charging connector on 14/09/2018 from Kozhikode Atlas mobiles service centre as per bill No.10465 for Rs.536/- . The same was received by the complainant convincing there is no guaranty for the product. The complainant came to the service centre of the opposite party and it was told that the mobile phone was entered water and so repair was not possible. The opposite party twice serviced the same without any document and the complainant produced some papers belongs to Nilambur shop and it was brought by one Mr. Vahid Parappanangadi. He came to the shop of opposite party and threatening the workers of the shop demanded warranty and placed phone at the shop. The opposite party never demanded any sort of document. The service centre of Samsung company is working at Tirur since 2007 onwards. The complainant is bound to implead the manufacturer Samsung company for the redressal of her grievance. Once one Vahid from Parappanagdi came to the shop at Tirur and no point of time the complainant turned to my shop.
3. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. Complainant documents marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is copy of customer details. Ext. A2 is copy of tax invoice issued from Atlas mobiles East Nadakavu, Calicut dated 14/09/2018. Ext. A3 is copy of tax invoice issued from Tirur, Samsung service centre dated 03/11/2018. Ext. A4 is acknowledgement of service request issued from Samsung service centre Tirur dated 19/11/2018. Document s on the side of opposite party marked as B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is copy of treatment certificate. Ext. B2 is copy of service request issued by Samsung service centre Tirur.
4. Heard both side, perused affidavit and documents. The grievance of the complainant is that she entrusted a mobile phone to the opposite party for service which was purchased from the opposite party on 14/04/2018 and the mobile phone became defective within short period. But the opposite party did not repaired the mobile phone and even not returned the same. But on perusal of the affidavit and documents of the complainant, the contents are self-contradicting. Ext. A1 shows that the product was purchased from Galaxy Smart Café of Nilambur dated 07/04/2018. But in the affidavit the date of purchase is shown as 14/04/2018 and it is from Tirur. The contention in the affidavit is that though a bill was issued by the opposite party it has missed. The complainant contented in the affidavit that charging pin of the mobile was rectified from the opposite party but she could use it for a single day. She requested second time for repairing but that time it was said the pin itself is defective and to be replaced. But it can be seen that the complainant has not stated anything about in the complaint. The complainant admitting in the affidavit that a worker from the opposite party shop had told that the complaint of mobile phone was due to entry of water in to the mobile phone. Complainant also stated in the affidavit that while she entrusted mobile phone it was told the complaint was only to the pin of the charger. The submission of the complaint is that if there was a complaint of entering water in to the mobile phone it could have stated while entrusting the mobile phone to the opposite party .There was no incident of entering water into the mobile phone from the side of complainant.
5. The opposite party filed affidavit contending that complainant has not produced any document to show the purchase of mobile phone from the opposite party. It is also submitted that complainant produced a document which shows purchase of mobile phone charging connector from a shop at Calicut. The opposite party has contented the complainant was convinced that there was no scope of warranty and there was issue of entry of water in to the phone which cannot be rectified also. The complainant had approached opposite party twice for service and there was payment also for that. The submission of the opposite party is that one person called Vahid from Parpanagaid came to his shop and demanded warranty and threatened the workers in the shop. The said Vahid placed the mobile phone in the shop and left. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant and the complainant never turned to the opposite part shop. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
6. On examination of the documents it can be seen that there is no proper documents to support the claim of the complainant. Complainant could not establish that she purchased mobile phone from the opposite party shop and a warranty was given to the mobile phone also. Even purchase date is not certain from the affidavit or documents. Complainant have no case that she approached the opposite party directly at any point of time. She admit that one Vahid approached the opposite party for the mobile phone from the opposite party. The contention in the complaint and affidavit are two different versions contradicting each other. Complainant could not prove her case. So, the Commission do not find merit in the case of complainant.
In the light of above facts and circumstances the complaint is dismissed.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of customer details.
Ext.A2: Copy of tax invoice issued from Atlas mobiles East Nadakavu, Calicut dated
14/09/2018.
Ext A3: Copy of tax invoice issued from Tirur, Samsung service center dated
03/11/2018.
Ext A4: Acknowledgement of service request issued from Samsung service centre
Tirur dated 19/11/2018.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2
Ext.B1: Copy of treatment certificate.
Ext.B2: Service request issued by Samsung service centre Tirur.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
