DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                  …………….

Presents:-

1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
3. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                    Dated, Bolangir the 28^th  day of October 2016.

                    C.C.No.15 of 2016.

Madhab Kumar Meher, age- 42 years son of Uttam Meher

Village/P.O/P.S- Tarbha, Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                         ..                ..            Complainant.

                     -Versus-

1.Prop-Sargam Electronics, At- Ramai Talkies Road,

   P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

2.M/S.Gopanjali Sales, At- 1^st Floor,K-Nart,Bolangir (Near

   Suruchi Bazar, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

3.Micromax Mobile, Regd.Head Office, Micromax House,697.

   Udyo Vihar, Phase-V,Gurgaon -122022 (Haryana).

                                                                         ..                 ..           Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the complainant-Sri C.S.Mishra, & Associates.

Adv.for the O.P.No.1 -    Sri S.K.Mishra.

Adv. for the O.Ps 2 & 3- None.

                                                                           Date of filing of the case-10.03.2016

                                                                           Date of order                   - 28.10.2016

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara, President.

              Succinctly put, the complainant purchased  a Micromax smart phone model No.-A300 Canvas Gold from O.P vide invoice No.3462 against a consideration of Rs 15,300/- on dt.16.01.2015.

2.          The complainant averred post purchase after few months the phone developed defect in mic problem. In rectification approached the service centre on 19.11.2015.One job sheet provided on dt.02.12.2015.The O.Ps protracted delay in removal of defect inspite of repeated approach did not bear fruit. Sent legal notice .As the phone is a day to day necessity product, non-rendering service caused mental agony for which institute the case in relief of refund the cost of the mobile and further reliefs deemed fit in the interest of justice.

3.              The complainant made reliance of retail invoice (3462), Warranty statement, Receipt dt.19.11.2015,job sheet dt.2.12.2015,Pleaders notice in photo copies and affidavit.

4.              In pursuance to notice O.P.1 appeared, made version in contending the complainant is not a consumer within purview of the Act. The case is not tenable in view of violation of terms and conditions expressed by the company. Although the smart phone has sold to the complainant but no assurance given except expressed terms and condition as in warranty stipulation spells. The MIC problem has been properly addressed but the complainant failed to approach in receiving of same. No negligence committed. Prayed dismissal of the complaint for end of justice.

5.              O.P.2 not appeared. Service of notice is sufficient u/s.28A and sub section 3 & 4 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

6.              O.P.3 not appeared service of notice is sufficient under sub section 3 & 4 of Section 28A of the Act.

7.              Heard and perused the materials on record.

8.              Perusal of record reveals complainant named Madhaba Kumar Meher, resident of Tarbha, P.O/P.S- Tarbha and Dist- Bolangir where as retail invoice, address is Tarbha. Warranty card issued in favour of Madhaba Meher,Tarbha and lastly Receipt issued in receive of Mobile, handset that  also transpires address- Madhav Meher,Tarbha, Sonepur. In addition the job sheet issued by M/S.Gopanjali Tele sales expressly admits the complainant belongs to the above mentioned jurisdiction, so by implication of Section 11 (2)(b) the forum jurisdiction is barred .Further the mandate under same clause reads the permission or leave of the forum as per the requirement of the section is entirely not sought. Short of such mandatory compliance strengthens barred of jurisdiction entertainment of the petition.

9.             Further observed the learned advocate has made a pleaders notice to the O.Ps on dt.18.02.2016 in knowledge that the petition belongs district of Sonepur but the affidavit made with affirmation along with the application is made before the forum in suppression of material fact contrary to the same truth which is deplorable & misleading to the court in intention. Our such view is fortified by the decisions in which. Held- One who does not come to court with clean hands and with hold vital documents in order to get advantage on other side, he would be guilty of playing fraud on court and has no right to approach court.-Tata Motors Ltd & Another Vrs Hazoor Maharaj Baba- 2013(4) CPR 272 (NC).

(ii)Filing of false affidavit before consumer forum is a very serious matter- M/S.Krish City Vrs.Laxmi Garg- 2015(1) CPR 395 (NC).

                In view of the above noted observation and findings, it is concluded the petitioner although purchased the product but implication of the section under the statute is mandatory and essential ingredient in sought of leave of the court being a outsider to the jurisdiction. Thereby the case is hereby dismissed being barred of jurisdiction.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 28^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 22016.

                       (S.Rath)                              (G.K.Rath)                       (P.Samantara)

                   (MEMBER)                            (MEMBER)                         (PRESIDENT)