Date of filing : 16.02.2018.
Decided on : 20.02.2020.
J U D G E M E N T
Sajal Kanti Jana, Member – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Sk Nasir Hosen against the O.ps. named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-
On 26/10/2017, the complainant purchased a mobile set viz LG Q6T having IMEI No.358755083674413 priced at Rs.17,990/- from the retail shop of O.p. no.2. On 25/11/2017 the said mobile set fell down from the hand of the complainant at the time of receiving a call in the car. As soon as the said phone fell down on the floor of the car, the screen of the handset stopped working. On the same day, the complainant informed the O.p. no.2 regarding the said incident and he was advised by the O.p. no.2 to deposit the hand set to O.p. no.1. On 25/11/2017, the complainant accordingly deposited his mobile phone to the O.p. no.1 for replacing the touch pad and the O.p. no.1 assured the complainant that the mobile set will be ready within 7 days. On 04/12/2017, the O.p. no.1 informed the complainant that the parts of the mobile set were not available in the market and the complainant will be informed as soon as the parts are available. Since the O.ps. failed to handover the mobile set after it’s repairing, so on 30/01/2018, the complainant through his Advocate’s firm asked the O.ps. to refund the price of the mobile set. Since the O.ps did not response to the said letter, so the complainant has filed this case praying for an order of refund of the total price of the mobile set with 9% interest and for an order of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- and for an order of litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
All the O.ps. have contested this case by filing a joint written version.
Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the O.ps. that the warranty clause no.2 under handing warranty limitation clearly says that damage caused by reckless use shall not be entertained. However for customer’s satisfaction and for goodwill of the company, the service centre of the O.ps. took the said hand-set and promised the complainant that since the set is within warranty period so they will try their best to repair it free of cost. It is stated by the O.ps. that they tried by all possible ways to request the complainant to take back the hand-set but all in vain. It is further stated by the O.ps. that the repair of the said hand-set has been done free of cost and the complainant may be asked to take back the mobile from the O.ps. It is also stated by the O.ps. that they have no deficiency in service on their part and they therefore pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his written examination-in chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he has also filed all relevant documents in support of his case. On the other hand, O.ps. adduced no evidence.
POINT FOR DECISION
- Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile-set in question from the O.p. no.2 on 26/10/2017 at a consideration of Rs.17,990/-. Nowhere in his petition of complainant, the complainant has stated that there was any defect in the said mobile phone. From the petition of complainant it appears that the mobile phone stopped working after it fell down from the hand of the complainant himself while he was receiving a call in his car. It thus appears that due to reckless use of the hand phone by the complainant himself, the said mobile phone was damaged. O.ps. have filed warranty information of the said hand phone and it appears from clause-I of warranty limitation that the company is not liable for any damage caused by reckless use. However, it appears from the w.v. filed by the O.ps. that as a good gesture they have repaid the said mobile phone free of cost but it is the complainant who neglected to get back the mobile phone from the O.ps. O.ps. have also filed a letter dated 05/03/2018 issued by O.p. no.1 wherefrom we find that the complainant was asked to collect the repaired mobile phone from their service centre.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. as alleged by the complainant and as such the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
However the complainant is at liberty to get back his mobile set from the O.ps.
All the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint case fails.
Hence,
it is,
O R D E R E D
that the complaint case no.65/2018 is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Sajal Kanti Jana)
Member, D.C.D.R.F.,
Howrah.
