Meghalaya

East Khasi Hills

CC/28/2019

Miss Melody L Tlau - Complainant(s)

Versus

San Cellular Concept Authorised Service Center Mobile (HPP) - Opp.Party(s)

R H Alice & others

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
EAST KHASI HILLS, SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/28/2019
( Date of Filing : 17 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Miss Melody L Tlau
Police Reserve, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. San Cellular Concept Authorised Service Center Mobile (HPP)
Barik Point Near Step By Step School Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 JUDGES Shri N.Khan PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Dr (Mrs) D.H.K.War MEMBER
  Dr S.M Lyngdoh MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Aug 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Rival parties are present. Complainant appeared through Learned counsel Shri R.Alice . Opposite Party represented by Shri Shubham Rathore, Manager of San Cellular.

 

From the argument of the rival parties and material on record, it appears that the matter does not require adjudication. The subject matter of the complaint is a mobile. The mobile has been repaired and returned to the Complainant. It is alleged by the Complainant that the mobile was in a warranty period. However, the warranty does not cover if there is damage in the mobile due to liquid logged. The Opposite Party repaired the mobile without any charges. The Complainant insist on adjudication the matter on the ground that the mobile phone was not damage by liquid logged. The contention raised by the Complainant is inconsequential, nevertheless, the Complainant wants to adjudicate the matter and prays that an expert’s opinion may be called for. The contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party is carrying out unfair trade practice in order to escape the warranty period. The matter shall examined. The Complainant was given an option to close the matter with a minimum compensation, the Complainant is adamant to proceed with the matter.

 

The Complainant shall deposit the repair charges which is Rs 6,800/- and also the fees for the expert. When the Commission was in the process of passing this Order, to deposit the Service charge, the Complainant turned around and concedes that the matter can be closed taking into consideration that the matter was resolved not by the parties but only when the Commission had intervened. The Complainant was compelled to approach the Commission raising the grievance. The Complainant was forced to approach the Commission, for resolving the disputes. The consumers should not be forced to approach the Commission, if the matter can be resolved without the intervention of the Commission, in order to deter the service providers from forcing the consumers to approach the Commission when the matter can be amicably resolved. This Commission imposed a cost of Rs 1,500 (Rupees one thousand and five hundred ) on the Opposite Party.

 

Case stands disposed off.

 

 
 
[JUDGES Shri N.Khan]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Dr (Mrs) D.H.K.War]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Dr S.M Lyngdoh]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.