1. The Present Complaint Case Has Been By The Complainant Triloki Pandey, Against Opposite Party Number(1) Sandeep Rakshit Dealer Of Reliance Retail Limited Of Shivpahar Gidhani Road Dumka And Opposite Party Number(2) Rajnish Gupta Residence Of Rashikpur Near Gopal Mandir Dumka. Under Section 12 Of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 For Eligibly And Arbitrary Note Providing Proper Services.
2. The Complainant Case And Brief Is That The Complainant Is Consumer And For His Day To Day Necessity Purchased A Smart Phone CKLS, 5002,Black WA Mobile Bearing Serial Number RCKMPJB, 00073773 And IMEI-1/IMEI-2 Is 868877022231726/868899024631725 Daily Purchased On 07.02.2017 Vide Cash Memo Number 10.02.2017 Which Eligliy Said As Not Functioning Well.
The Complainant Purchased Said Mobile On Payment Of Consideration Amount Of Rupees 7400.
3. It Is Pertinent To Mention Here That Since Beginning After The Purched Said Mobile Started Disturbance And Through Here Expert After Cleaning The Disturbance Deliver The Same To The Complaint For Which The Complainant Has Protested Several Time And Lastly On Asking The O.P’s And To Deposit The Mobile For Proper Repair By The Machanic Of The Company And 06.12.2017 Said Mobile Was Given For Repairing, But The Mobile Was Not Functioning Well, A For Which The Complainant Presented The Said Mobile To Service Centre And Asked The Opposite Party To Give New Mobile In Place Of Old Mobile But It Was Refused By The O.P. The Complainant Also Send A Pleader Notice To The Opposite Party But No Reply By Sent A The Opposite Party .
4. The Complainant Several Time Tried To Settle The Dispute By Giving The Mobile For Repairing And Asked To Replace The Same As Per Agreement, The Complainant Prays The Flowing Relief With Direction To Opposite Party To Pay The Following Amount
(A) The Cost Of Mobile -Rs 7400 = 00
(B) Compensation For Such Wrong And Eligildeling Causing Lost To Complainant -Rs 50,000=00
(C) And Also Cost Of Litigation Rs- 5000/ Total 62400/- Rupees
5. The Opposite Party Appeard After Notice And File There Written Statement On 06.07.2018 And Has Stated That The Complainant Purchase, Make LYF Model CKLS 5002, Bearing IMEI No. 868877022231726/868877024631725 From Sonu Telecom On 07.02.2017 Vide Case Memo Issued On 10.02.2017 For Rupees 7400 . The Complainant Visited The LYF Mobile Service Centre Being Operated By Reliance Retail Ltd On 05.08.2017 That Is After A Span Of 6 Month From Perched To Report The Allegedprobiem Of “Hand Set On Logo Blinking (Hang),” After Thorough Inspection And Verification Of The Product O.P. Number (1) Found That The Such Hanging Problems Is Normally Attributable To The Installation Of Non Genuine Application, Visiting Malicious Sites And Installation And Running Of Various Applications Symalteneosly And Did’nt Find Any Hardware Related Problems In The Products And After Reassembled A The Issue Of Handing The Opposite Party (1) Updated Software Product, The Product Was Functioning Normaly As The Same Was Demonstrated By Opposite Party (1) To The Complainant Who After Thoroughly Inspecting The Product Receipt After Comptely Satisfied, Took The Delivery Of The Product On The Same Day.
6. It Is Further Stated That On 06.12.2017 (That Is After 10 Month From The Purchased Of The Product ) The Complainant Again Visited That Opposite Party Number (1) To Report The Alleged Problem “Jio Sim Deactived Error, Sim No-02 Not Active This Handset”. That Even Business Closing Hours And As A Good Will Gesture Opposite Party Number (1) Collected The Product From Complainant. After Inspection And Verification Of The Product, The Opposite Party Number (1) Didn’t Find Any Hardware Related Problem In The Product. It Was How Everovsrved That The Sim Slot Of The Product Was Full Of Dust And Hence, To Result The Functional, Opposite Party Number (1) Reassembled The Product And Did Contacts Cleaning Of The Functioning Normally And After Kiping The Product Under Abservation For Same Time And After Getting Satisfied. That There Was No Issue In The Handset Opposite Party Number (1) Intimated The Same To The Complainant With Request The Collect The Product On The Very Next Day That Is On 07.12.2017 The Complainant After Repeated Request To Collect The Product, Finally Collected The Product On 20.12.2017 And That Too After Thoroughly Inspecting The Product To His Complete Satisfaction And After Signing An Acknowledging A Created Job Sheet. After 20.12.2017 Complainant Or Any Of His Representative Never Visited The Authorized Service Centre Of The Opposite Party.
The Complainant Has Not Valid Cause Of Action To File The Present Case . The Complainant Is Not Entitle For Any Relief And Case Of Complainant Is Lible To Be Dismissed .
7. The Complainant In Support Of In Case As Adduced P.W. 1- Triloki Pandey And P.W.2- Rajendra Prasad Pandey As A Oral Evidence And Filed As Docemontey Evidence, Exibit-1-Cash Memo A Issued By MassureSonutelecome Of Rs, 7400/- And Exibit-2 Job Sheet Issued By Opposite Party Dated 06.12.2017 .
8. The Opposite Party In Support Of His Case Has Filed The Affidavit Of Roshan Sinha As A Witness And Also Filed .
(I) Annexure-1 Consumer Information Slip
(II) Annexure-B Job Sheet Dated 05.08.2017
(III) Annexure- C Costumer Information Slip Dated 06.12.2017
(IV) Annexure-D Job Sheet Dated 06.12.2017
9. The Points Of Determination In This Case Weather The Complainant Is Entitled Any Relief Or Reliefs As Claimed ?
Finding
10. The P.W.1 Triloki Pandey Has Fully Supported Is Case And Has Started As That He Purchased A Smart Phone From Rajnish Gupta And From Very First Day Of Purchasing Mobile The Problem Accrued, He Produced The Mobile Repairing On 06.12.2017 To The Opposite Party Service Centre The Opposite Party Refused To Give New Mobile In Place Of The Mobile And During Cross Examination In Para- 11th Admitted That Is Mobile Created Problem In November 2017 Went The Service Centre After Repairing The Mobile Within Hour Return To The Petitioner. On In Para- 17th He As Admitted That He Given His Mobile For Repairing In Service Centre On 06.12.2017 .
11. The P.W. 2 Rajendra Prasad Pandey Has Fully Supported The Case Of Complainant In His Examination In Chief But During Class Examination Para- 5th As Admitted The Complainant Is His Son And In Para-7th Further Disclosed That Said Mobile Is With His Son.
12. Opposite Party Witness No.1 Roshan Sinha As Stated . In Para- 11.That He Is Mobile Mechanic And Technician And Further Stated That He Repair The Mobile In Question. An Para-13 Has Said That There Was No Complaint Regarding Or Backup ,There Was Only Complaint Regarding Sim Card And Hanging And Para-15th He Further Stated Due To Dust There Was Sim Activation Problem Which Was Remove By Cleaning. In Para-16th Has Stated First Problem Regarding Hanging Of The Mobile Which Was After Updating This Software Problem Was Remove And Handing Over The Complainant On The Same Day, Has Further Stoled In Para-19th That Complainant First Time Came His Service Center On 05.08.2017 And He Came To His Service Centre For The Rapairing Set Mobile.
13. Heard The Learned Lawyer For The Complainant And Learned Lawyer Of The Opposite Party And Gone Through The Evidences Adduced On Behalf Both The Partner (Oral And Documentary Both) Apparently Annexure- A And Annexure B Filed By The Opposite Party Clearly Shows That The Said Mobile Was Purched By Complainant On 07.02.2017 And First Time Produced The Service Centre On 05.08.2017 Regarding Complaint Of Hang On Logo. Annexure- B Which Is Job Sheet Shows That The Set Mobile Was Handed Over To The Complainant On Same Day After Removing The Defect Annexure-C Which Is Dated 06.12.2017 In Which The Problem Was Described, “ Sim Deactivate Error And Not Activate Hand Set,” Annexure-D Which Is Job Sheet Shows That After Reassemble And Contact Cleaning Reproblems Were Removed And After Full Satisfaction The Complainant Received His Mobile 20.12.2017 . It Is Apperant There Was No Material Defect In The Product .I.E Hand Set Because The Job Sheet Annexure-B And D Clearly Shows That Due To Dust And Uploading Unnecessary Apps The Mobile Was Hanging And Not Functioning Properly And After Reassemble The Product And Did Contact Cleaning Of The Product, The Product Was Found To Be Functioning Normally And After Keeping The Product Under Observation For Same Time And After Getting Satisfied Opposite Party Witness No. 1 Rohan Sinha Which Is Mobile Mechanic And Technician Has Found No Material Defect In The Hand Set. The Opposite Party Has Properly Given Services To The Complainant When Ever He Went To The Service Centre Of The Opposite Party . A Part From That The Complainant Had Not Adduced Any Evidence Or Chit Of Paper To Stabilised This Fact That He Went To Several Time Visited Opposite Party Service Centre Regarding The Problem Hand Set And The Other Side Opposite Party Filed The Annexure-A,B,C,D Which Proof The Fact That Complainant Has Only Twicely Visited The Service Centre Of The Opposite Party And Opposite Party As Given Service Promptly And Efficiently To The Complainant Also Failed To Established His Case;
In View Of The Above Discussion We Find That The Complainant Is Not Entitled Is Any Claim Or Relief As Clamed. As Such
We, Therefore,
Ordered
That This Case Is The Same Is Here By Dismissed On Contact Without Cost. This Case Is Thus Disposed Of Accordingly.
