West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/70/2018

Bibekananda Paitandi S/O. Ranjit Paitndi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Telelinks Software Sollution, Represented by Proprietor Palash Mallick, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

The case of the complainant Bibekananda Paitandi   in brief is that on 05.02.2017 he purchased a Motorola Mobile being Model No. XT1550 at price of Rs.9000/- from O.P Dip & Jit Telecom of Muktipur, Birbhum manufactured by Motorola.

From the first day of purchase of the Mobile Phone handset was not working properly.  The complainant had been to authorized Service Centre of Motorola for restoration of defect handset.

The Service Centre, i.e. O.P repaired the handset and lastly O.P informed the complainant that the defect of handset is being cost of defect of battery.

The O.P also said it was necessary to replace the battery.

Accordingly the complainant replaced the battery from the Service Centre of Motorola.  The O.P took the handset and replaced the battery in the handset of the complainant on 03.08.2018 and received               Rs. 10,050.88/- and after one day that is on 04.08.2018 the handset was return to the complainant by the O.P.

That since the date of installation of the new battery in the said handset of the complainant display is being shown some line and scratch mark.

The complainant asked the O.P reason of the defect.  The O.P replied that at the time of change of the battery the display has been affected.  And it would further be repaired and cost of the handset repair will be paid by the complainant.

That the complainant requested the O.P to repair the handset free of cost.  But the O.P i.e., authorized Service Centre of the Motorola refused to do so.

Having no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum for proper relief.

Telelinks Software Sollution, represented by Palash Mallick, Service Centre of Motorola, Suri, Birbhum, received the notice but none appeared and did not contest the case.

The case has been heard ex-parte against the O.P Service Centre of Motorola vide Order No.04             dt.15.11.2018.

Upon pleading of the party the following points are to be considered for discussion.

Point for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?

                                                                                                                                       

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Bibekananda Paitandi has been examined himself as P.W.1 and he also filed some documents.

Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No.1:- Evidently the complainant had purchased a handset of Mobile Phone being Model                   No. - XT1550 Motorola, price of Rs. 9000/- from Dip & Jit Telecom of Muktipur, Birbhum on August 18.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:- OP Motorola Service Centre has showroom at Birbhum within jurisdiction of this Forum.  The total valuation of the case is Rs. 9000/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.  So this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:- Both points are taken convenience of discussion as they are related to each other. 

The complainant Bibekananda Paitandi in his complaint and evidence stated that 05.02.2017 he purchased a Mobile hand set being mobile No. XT1550 Motorola, at a price of Rs. 9000/- from the Dip & Jit Telecom, Muktipur whom has issued Cash Memo in his regard.

Original Cash Memo dt.05.02.17 filed by the complaint issued by the O.P Dip & Jit Telecom.

Shows that the complainant purchased Motorola being Model No. XT1550 from the O.P.

The complainant in his evidence further stated that soon after purchased it was found that the said handset was not working properly.   Because the complainant display is being shown some line scratch marks after installation the battery.

            We find that in his evidence the complainant stated that he went to Motorola Service Centre for restoration of defect handset for checking the problem. 

            The Service Centre i.e. O.P could restore the handset and said the defect handset is being cost of defect of battery.  The O.P also said it is necessary to replace the battery.

The complainant replaced the battery from the Service Centre of Motorola and paid Rs. 1050.88/- to the Service Centre to the purpose of changing the battery.

After installation the battery the complainant display is being shown some line and scratch mark.

            In the presence case the complainant prayed for the directing the O.P to repair the handset or replace the same by new one.

It appears from the receipt issued by Dip & Jit Telecom that the complainant has purchased the said set on 05.02.17.

Tax invoice dt.03.08.2018 shows that the complainant got repaired his mobile set on payment of         Rs 1050.88/- on 03.08.2018.

So, it is clear that the Mobile set was purchased on 05.02.2017 and he brought the same for repair on 03.08.2018.  That is more than one year after purchased.

We further find that no warranty card is produced by the complainant.

So, we are in dark whether any warranty card was issued in favour of the complainant or not.

And alleged warranty was extended up to which date?

We find that the complainant in his evidence stated that the worker of the O.P at the time of changing

 

 

                                                                                                                                        

battery made defect of the display of the handset of the complainant and as such the opposite party himself will be responsible to repair the handset free of cost or to replace the Mobile handset by a new defect free Mobile handset of the same Model of the Motorola Company.  

But beside the evidence of the complainant there is nothing to show that at the time of changing battery worker of the O.P made any defect in the handset.

More so manufacture of the Mobile namely Motorola Company has not made parte to the case.

This is a case of defect in Mobile set after repair but the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence in this regard.

Considering the overall matter into consideration and materials on record we think that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by his testimony that the Mobile set in question was defective from the very beginning or after the installation the battery defect cropped there.

No deficiency in service of the O.P has been proved.

Complainant is duty bound to establish his case but he could not do so.

We think in this juncture the case is liable to dismissed.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                      that C.F case No. 70/2018 be and the same is dismissed on ex parte No Cost.

 

                                                                                                                                                

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.