BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHARWAD.
COMPLAINT NO.236/2016
Date: 12th day of September, 2017
P r e s e n t:
Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar, B.A., LLB : President
Sri.B.S.Keri, B.A., LLB (Spl) : Member
Complainants :- | 1.
| Abdul Arif S/o Mohammad Mehaboobsab, Age: Major.,Occ: Private Service, C/o: Malatesh L. Gondy, #77, 2nd cross, Elukoti Building, Near Vijaya Welding Factory, Krupa Nagar, Hubli. (Rep. by Sri C.K.Angadi, Adv.) |
Opposite Parties :- 1. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd,
Shop No-3 &, Diamond Point,
Opp. HDFC Bank,
Koppikar Road, Hubli.
2. Sangeetha Mobiles Pvt Ltd,
# 1183, 30th main road,
22nd ‘A’ cross, Banashankaru
2nd stage, Bangalore-560070
(OP1 & OP2 by Sri. S.N.Madhu)
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY
SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:
The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased the mobile handset of HTC Company Dezire 816 Dark Grey 352795060077038 from OP No.1 on 07.06.2014 by paying Rs.23,035/-. The said handset started giving trouble same had been intimated to OP, the OP repaired the same only for temporary usage. It is not working in a good condition. Aggrieved by the same, Complainant issued a legal notice demanding the OP to replace the mobile handset. Further, Complainant submits that Ops have not bothered to the Complaint of the Complainant and not inclined to heed the request of the Complainant. Hence, Complainant prayed to order for replace the handset and other reliefs from the Forum with interest.
3. The Forum registered the complaint and issue notice to OPs, OPs appeared before the Forum through their advocate and filed Written Version.
The brief fact of the Written Version of OP No.1 and 2:-
The OP No.1 and 2 submits that it is a Company dealing in sales of various kinds of mobiles sets from various manufacturers and having their Head Office at Bangalore. The OP No.1 and 2 submits that the Complainant has purchased the mobile handset as stated in the Complaint. It has been purchased from the OP No.1 and this OP is only doing the role as a facilitator, he sell the mobile without opening the seal container box, but Complainant had not made a party to the manufacturer since he is the necessary party to the proceedings. The said address had been mentioned in the manual book as well as in the Invoice given by the OP at the time of sale. Moreover, the said mobile was covered with one year warranty of the manufacturer of mobile handset and another one year extended warranty had been given by the OP.
4. Further, OP submits that the Complainant had availed the warranty service from the authorized service Centre of the manufacturer of the mobile set who had not been made party to the Complaint. The Complainant had produced a Job Sheet of Authorized Service Centre of the manufacturer of the mobile set himself before the Forum and further OP submits that OP had provided a repairs service for the mobile set of the Complainant for five times i.e. 07.01.2016, 29.01.2016, 26.02.2016, 10.03.2016 and 30.03.2016 during the extended warranty period provided by this OP. Further, OP submits that as Complainant had not made the authorized service centre as a party to the proceedings. This is the fact also and further what has conspired between the Complainant and Service Centre of the manufacturer of mobiles set is not within the knowledge of OP-1 as per the Complaint, if Complainant really wanted any replacement, he should have got a D.A.O. from the authorized service centre of the manufacturer of mobile set and without any such D.A.O.is produced the Complainant could not get any replacement. Hence, OP prayed to dismiss the Complaint of the complainant for non-joinder of necessary party and not produced any evidence or expert opinion to show that mobile set is mal functioning due to the deficiency in service of OP and prayed to dismiss the Complaint with costs.
5. In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant filed his affidavit and produced the documents which are C-1 to C-3. They are:
1. C-1 Invoice,
2. C-2 Service Job Sheet,
3. C-3 Legal Notice,
4. C-3 A & B – Postal Acknowledgement.
The Complainant produced Xerox Invoice dated: 07.06.2014.
OP not filed any affidavit on behalf of them and not filed any documents.
6. On perusal of above documents and arguments heard on Complainant side, the points arises before us for adjudications are as follows:
1. Whether the Complaint is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
2. 3. | Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief? Whether the complainant proves that OPs made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice? What Order? |
| |
Our Answer to the above Points are:-
Point No.1 – Affirmative,
Point No.2 – In view of affirmative findings on Point NO.1,
Point NO.2 do not survive.
Point No.3 – As per the final order.
-:: R E A S O N S ::-
7. Point No.1:- The complainant filed this complaint against OPs alleging that Complainant purchased the mobile hand set from the OP No.1 and submits that it started giving trouble as such Ops have given a one year extended warranty within that warranty mobile set is not working properly. This is the allegation of the Complainant against the Ops. Ops filed a Written Version taking contention that Complainant has not made authorized service center a necessary party to the proceedings and he had not lead the evidence of any expert before the Forum to prove that mobile is defective. Moreover, the Complainant is not made the authorized service Centre as a party to the proceedings. Moreover, the OP repaired the mobile in several occasions. The first and foremost Point to be taken for discussion is that whether the Complainant made a necessary party to the proceedings. We do agree that OP No.1 had sold the mobile to the Complainant on 07.06.2014 as per the Invoice C1 reveals the same. The counsel for the Complainant submits that the said OP has given an extended warranty of one year to the Complainant while arguing the matter. Forum raised the question whether it has been mentioned in the Invoice. So that Complainant produced a copy of the Cash Invoice dated: 07.06.2014 with Memo on 18.01.2017. In this Invoice, while compared to the Original Invoice both the invoice look like same, but in the Xerox Invoice there is a note in Note NO.2 “Sangeeta Secure Additional One year extended warranty.” But in this juncture we cannot entertain the Xerox Invoice, whereas original invoice had been filed during filing the Complaint. As such, it cannot be acceptable one. Moreover, as per the Written Version of the OP it is clear that we have mention very clear in the Invoice in Terms and Condition that in Point NO.2 as per EX C1 “Warranty whatsoever provided by the manufacturer and not Sangeeta Mobile Pvt. Ltd.,” Moreover OP furnished the address of the manufacturer. As per the contention of Complainant the mobile set is having manufacturer defect. Complainant not came forward to make the manufacturer as a party. As per document No.C2 Service Job Sheet it clears that the customer had been signed on a signature of customer column signature and service feedback writing had been marked as good.
8. Forum observed that Complainant had not produced the mobile set before the Forum and not filed any expert opinion, as such it is clear that Complainant not made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings. Hence, Complaint is not liable for any compensation. We answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
9. POINT NO.2: In the light of our findings and discussion on Point No.1, Point No.2 does not survive.
10. POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and findings on the above points, we proceed to pass the following:
-::O R D E R::-
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost.
