1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that the display of his Gionee handset was broken and hence he approached the OP on 10.6.2015 to replace the display with a new one and the OP charged Rs.3500/- towards repair which was supposed to be delivered to the complainant on 11.6.2015 but on that day the shop of OP was closed. After 3 days the OP handed over the set and the complainant paid Rs.3500/- towards repair charges but the display was not properly fitted with the set and the camera was not working properly. It is submitted that the OP refused to do anything and misbehaved the complainant and the OP also snatched away the other mobile which was in the hand of the complainant, the video footage of the incident is available with the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service and supply of defective goods on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to return Rs.3500/- towards repair charges, Rs.3000/- towards cost of camera and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant had approached me on 10.6.15 to replace the broken display of his Gionee E3 handset with a new one. It is contended that the complainant was informed about the cost of original display at Rs.6500/- but the complainant enquired about the duplicate display and the OP replied that the duplicate display costs Rs.3500/- without warranty to be brought from Visakhapatnam (VSP). As agreed by the complainant, the OP brought the duplicate display from VSP and while fitting the display, the same got broken for which he ordered for a second display which was also received broken through courier. It is further contended that the fact was intimated to the complainant when he came to receive the handset on the date fixed but the complainant started giving threatens and tried to catch the reply and photos through his another mobile to which the OP protested. It is also further contended that the complainant received back his set with new display but after 3 days he came again with complaint that the display is not fitted properly and the camera of the set is not working well. The OP submitted that the complainant on its full satisfaction received the repaired handset when the camera was working properly and paid Rs.3500/- but the allegation of non working of camera after three days is not the mistake of the OP. Regarding misfit of display, the OP submitted that duplicate display sometimes behaves like that and he has already sustained loss due to damage of 2 displays. With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases. Heard from the complainant as well as the A/R for the OP and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has submitted his handset with the OP for replacement of broken display on 10.6.15 which was to be delivered to the complainant on 11.6.15. The complainant stated that the OP took 3 days to deliver the handset but the display was not fitted properly and the camera was also not working well in spite of payment of Rs.3500/-. The OP on the other hand stated that he brought the display through courier from VSP but at the time of fitting the display got broken. A second display was also brought but the same found broken in transit for which it became 3 days late to deliver the handset to the complainant.
5. Regarding misfit of the display in the set, the OP submitted that the complainant opted for duplicate display and the OP tried his best to fit the display properly but due to duplicate one it kept slight misfit in spite of efforts which is not the fault of the OP. Regarding camera, the OP stated that the complainant received back the handset after payment of Rs.3500/- but after 3 days, he came with a new complaint of camera not working for which the OP is not at fault.
6. The OP in support of his case has filed copy of quotation obtained from the local market in which the rate of Gionee E3 touch and display has been mentioned as Rs.6500/-. This quotation shows that original touch and display is available in Jeypore market at Rs.6500/-. On summing up the versions of both the parties, it was ascertained that the OP has informed the complainant about the original display and the complainant has also enquired about the availability of duplicate display and being convinced, the complainant has ordered for a duplicate display which costs Rs.3500/-.
7. Further both the parties are agreeing with the fact that the handset was delivered to the complainant with 3 days delay. The OP stated that 1st display was broken during fitting and the 2nd display was brought broken and the facts were intimated to the complainant when he was approached to receive the handset. The OP also further stated that due to damage of displays, he sustained loss.
8. The complainant states that the display was misfit in the set. The OP states that duplicate part is always duplicate and sometimes behaves like that but the display would not affect the set and its functioning. The OP also further stated that he has not tempered with the display and fitted as it was received.
9. It is seen from the record that the complainant has received the set and has paid Rs.3500/- towards repair charges and has come up with this case. If he found that the display misfits the set and the camera is not working, then why should he pay the repair cost and received the set. As the complainant has received the set on payment of cost, it became crystal clear that on being satisfied the complainant has received the set. Further it reveals that the duplicate display fitted in the handset is not a damaged one. The complainant could have raised objection regarding functioning of camera during delivery of the set to him but he did not do so. If the camera was not working during delivery, the complainant should not pay any amount to the OP unless and until it was repaired. Receipt of handset after payment of repairing cost by the complainant clearly shows his full satisfaction over the repair of the OP. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. Regarding misbehavior allegations by both the parties, this Forum is not competent to take up this matter. However, nobody has any right to misbehave others as we are living in a civilized society in a lawful coexistence. From the above discussions, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence the case of the complainant deserves no merit and needs to be dismissed.
11. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
