Order-16.

Date-13/08/2018.

        Sri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Brief facts of the case are that on 01-09-2016 complainant purchased a Mobile set (Model No. Micromax X-344) and due to Screen problem he had been to the OP1 Technique Services, Authorized Service Centre of Micromax.  The Customer Care Officer of OP1 claimed Rs.771/- as service charge in spite of warranty period through the price of the mobile set was Rs.1,100/-.  Complainant issued legal notice dated 21-11-2016 to the OP under Speed Post.  On account of unethical activities of the OP, the complainant suffered from mental agony for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service adopting by the OP.  Finding no other alternative the complainant files the complaint before this Forum for redress of all disputes and further prays for reliefs as enumerated in the prayer portion of the complaint.

            The OP1, Technique Services contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations of the complainant.  The specific case of the OP1 is that the complainant purchased Micromax Mobile from the dealer of manufacture, complainant wanted to repair the said mobile from the OP1, an Authorized Service Centre of Micromax, authorized representative of OP1 detect the defect, told that the screen of the mobile had been damaged due to his personal fault, also claimed Rs.771/- as repairing cost as the mobile set is not under the coverage of warranty.  Further case of the OP1 that they have been appointed as an authorized service centre of the manufacturer and they cannot act beyond the terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty of the manufacturer.  As such, the OP1 is in no way liable and/or responsible for the alleged defect.  Ultimately, the OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.  In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that on prayer of the complainant the name of the OP2 has been expunged vide order dated 24-04-2017.

Points for Determination

1. Is the complainant a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP1 any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and are they liable in any way? and
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3  .All the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

            We have carefully examined the entire materials on record including the examination in chief of the parties and documents on record.  We also given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

            On bare perusal of the Annexure – D of the complaint petition available before us make it very clear that the complainant purchased a mobile set bearing Model No.X-344 on 01-09-2016 without mentioning the name of the manufacturing company.  Even the address of the shop including signature of the shop-owner have not been mentioned in the so called bill.  By this annexure this Forum cannot ascertain that the Micromax is the manufacturer of the Mobile Set.  In course of argument the complainant himself admitted that he purchased the Micromax X-344 handset from Fancy Market, Khiddirpur.  Even no warranty Card is forthcoming before the Forum to establish that the Mobile set is within the warranty period.  Therefore, it may be presumed that the mobile set is purchased in 2^nd hand condition at Fancy Market, Khidderpur.  OP1 is an authorized service centre of the manufacturer Micromax and they are not responsible of alleged manufacturing defect of the Mobile in question.  Being the authorized service centre of the manufacturer, the OP1 cannot act beyond the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty of the manufacturer.  Therefore, the OP1 being the authorized service centre of the Micromax is in no way liable and responsible for the defect as alleged.  The OP1 is not competent to reply the questionnaire furnished by the complainant being the authorized service centre. Particulars of the Mobile set has not been mentioned in the Annexure – D including its manufacturing year.  The Mobile set has not been purchased from any authorized shop.  More so, the name of the purchaser is not mention in the Annexure – D.  For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that there is manufacturing defect and such defect cannot be ascertained without expert opinion.  The main grievance of the complainant is against the manufacturer but the name of OP2 has been expunged vide order No.03 dated 24-04-2018 on the prayer of the complainant.  On the strength of Annexure – D the complainant cannot claim that he is a consumer u/s.2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP1.  As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  Thus, all the points under determination are decided against the complainant.

            In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant Complaint Case being No.76 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but without any cost.