Dt. of filing- 30/05/2019
Dt. of Judgement- 12/12/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This consumer complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Tapan Pan against the Opposite Parties namely (1) Savadika Retail (P) Ltd., (2)The Proprietor, Savakika Retail (P) Ltd., (3) M/s. Infotel Services alleging efficiency in service on their Part.
Case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a Mobile Set being product Model Redmi Note 4 – IN 4 + 6 4G Golden being IMEI (MEID) : 866747038503008 SL. No. 15658/8-1747885 and the Invoice dated 25.10.2017. Mobile hand set was ordered on-line through Flipkart. Complainant paid price of Rs. 10,990/- through e-banking to the account of OP No.1. Warrant Period of the hand set was upto 02.11.2018. The handset started giving trouble right from the beginning for which the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.3 who made some repair in slipshod manner. On 25.10.2018 the handset totally went out of order and it was not functioning. The complainant went to the Service Centre/OP No.3 but the OP No.3 returned the Redmi handset and informed that since Sub-board Liquid stands damaged, it was beyond repair. Complainant thus lodged a complaint with the Department of Consumer Affairs but as the mediation process failed, present complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for directing the OPs to replace the handset or in alternatively to refund cost of handset with interest, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and any other relief as the Forum deems fit.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint, tax invoice dated 25.10.2017 , service order , inspection sheet by the OP No.3, copy of the complaint made before the
Consumer Grievances Cell and reply by the said Consumer Affairs Department.
On perusal of the record it appears that the notice was served upon the OPs but as no step was taken by them, vide order dated 07.08.2019 case came up for exparte hearing.
So the only point requires determination is :
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
In support of his claim, complainant has filed copy of the tax invoice wherefrom it appears that the complainant purchased Handset/WD60020/MI – HSN.85171290, 866747038503816 at a price of Rs.10,999. The tax invoice is dated 25.10.2017. On a careful scrutiny of the tax invoice filed by the complainant indicates that the same does not relate to the Mobile set described in the complaint petition and which was given at the service centre on 25.10.2018. It appears from the service order that the invoice which was produced before them was dated 02.11.2017 and thus expiry date was 02.11.2018. In the tax invoice which has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure ‘A’ does not find any reflection about IMEI (MEID) being No. 866747038503008 or the Serial Number 15658/81747885 as stated in the complaint. So, the two documents i.e. tax invoice and the service order relates to two different product. It is further strengthened from the date of tax invoice. The tax invoice annexed with the complaint is dated 25.10.17 but before the service centre, Tax invoice submitted was dated 02.11.2017. Apart from this, complainant has not filed the terms and conditions of the warranty relating to the purchase of the product. As per service order, it is categorically mentioned that the product was Sub-board Liquid damaged and it bears the signature of the complainant. So, as the complainant has not filed terms and conditions towards the warranty, it is not clear that for a Sub-board Liquid damage hand set as noted by the service centre, complainant was entitled to replacement. Complainant has to prove his case and thus ought to have filed the terms and conditions in order to show that there has been deficiency in service. So in view of the discussions as highlighted above, as the complainant has failed to establish his case, he is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/259/2019 is dismissed exparte.
