Orissa

Debagarh

CC/35/2015

Sri Akshay Kumar Mahapatra, S/o-Prasanna Ku. Mahapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Samay Planet - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Mahapatra & K.B. Meher

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

DEOGARH.

Shri D.K.Mahapatra, President, Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member and Smt.Jayanti Pradhana,Member

 

                    Akshaya Kumar Mahapatra,

S/O- Prasanna Kumar Mahapatra,

R/O – Purunagarh,

PO – Purunagarh,

Dist.- Deogarh                                                                …        Complainant.

 

 

1.            The Proprietor, Samay Planet,

Near G.M.College Road, Sambalpur,

PO/PS/Dist. – Sambalpur

2.           The Manufacturer,

Sony Mobile Communication India Ltd.,

A-31, 2^nd Floor, Mahal Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, Estate, New Delhi.                                              …        Opposite Party.

 

CD Case No.35/2015

Date of hearing 02.01.2017                Date of Order 11.01.2017

              

               Counsel for the parties :

                            For the Complainant           :        Shri K.B.Meher, Advocate

                            For the Opposite Party(1)   :        Nemo

                            For the Opposite Parties(2)          :  Ms. Shweta Bharati, Advocate

                                                                                Mr. Shantanu, Advocate

                                                                                Mr. Anil Tiwari, Advocate

                                                                                Mr.Kailash Cha. Mahapatra, Advocate

 

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER –  The factual matrix of the case is that Akshaya Kumar Mahapatra, S/O – Prasanna Kumar Mahapatra resident of Purunagarh, PO – Purunagarh, PS/Dist – Deogarh (hereinafter termed as the Complainant) had purchased  one mobile handset of model Sony-Z Ultra , having IMEI No.356505374770 from the OP1 who is the dealer of OP2 on due payment of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand )only on dtd.7.3.2015 vide receipt No.3346 [Exhbt-P/1] bearing warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The handset went out of order after use of two months by developing mal functioning of the touch screen and finally went completely dead. The matter was brought to the notice of OP1 but the OP1 did not respond by saying that “ it is not my duty to cover warranty , go to company for repairing shop and don’t disturb me as I have other customer at my shop to attend upon. Even OP1 remained silent to the Pleader notice [Exhbt-p/2] served to him on dtd.28.10.2015 Complainant further averred that, in spite of having valid warranty O.P did not bother to serve him as the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from the O.P shop not from the Sony Company directly and the said mobile set is lying in the house of the petitioner in defunct condition. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint alleging the OP’s failure to provide proper service to the complainant having sought therein relief by way of replacing the defective mobile set with a new one or refund the cost of the handset i.e Rs.20,000/- and payment of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment alongwith Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

 

2.            Answering OP1 in his Written Statement, while admitting averments in Para-1 and Para-2 of the complaint contended in relation to Para-3 that averments made in Para-3 are not known to him and complainant is required to prove the same. Further it has been contended that, the averments made in Para-4 of the petition are partially admitted by the O.P. by way of admitting that he had requested to the petitioner to get the mobile handset repaired in the service station and to hand over the handset to send to service station for repairing under warranty period. In the context of the averments made in Para-5 and 6 OP1 has labeled the fact to be untrue. Also has submitted that complainant did not presented his handset in the company’s Service Station despite the fact that he requested several time to go to the service station. In regard to averments made in Para-7 OP1 has stated he is not aware of it and urged the complainant to prove the same. The averments made in para 8 has been admitted by the O.P that the servicing of handset is the duty of service centre but the complainant has not made party to the service station. That, the averments made in para 9 and 10 are denied by the O.P which is the fault of the service centre but the complainant has not made party to the service centre. In concluding it has been contended that the complainant is not liable to receive any compensation from the OP1 and the case may kindly be dismissed with cost.

3.            OP2 being a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 having its office available at ,A-31,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 one Mr.Priyank Chauhan , who has been authorized by Sony India Pvt.Ltd.vide Board Resolution dated 07.02.2014 to institute , conduct defend and to perform all acts on behalf of O.P.No.2 [Exhbt.-D/1] instead of giving para wise reply to the present complaint prefeerred  fit and proper to make a summary reply of the entire facts and circumstances. At the out set, alleging the complaint to  be false, frivolous and vexatious and has been only filed with malafide intention just and harassing the O.P.no.2 submitted  that the present complaint is neither maintainable in the eyes of law  or on facts or otherwise and is liable to be dismissed inlimine devoid of any cause of action against the O.P.no.2 .Further, it has been submitted that the avernments made in the complaint are baseless and do not cover the complete facts of the case and are made only with the intention to defame the O.P.No.2 and extorting money illegally . Also it is pertinent to mention here that with relentless commitment to quality , consistent dedication to customer satisfaction and unparalleled standards of service , the O.P.No.2 is recognized as a benchmark for new age technology, superior quality , digital concepts and personalized service that has ensured loyal customers and nationwide acclaim in the industry. Submission of OP2 continues as when any customer approaches the O.P.No.2 with bonafide complaint, he is provided immediate after sales service as a matter of policy .It is contended that it is apparent that the complainant is pursuing the present complaint in most unfair manner for illegal enrichment and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost against the complainant and in favour of O.P.no.2 accusing therein the present frivolous complaint is an apt illustration of flagrant abuse of the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and the complaint under reply merits no indulgence from this Hon’ble forum. Moreover, complainant has not provided the details of the product purchased except a wrong IEMI No.3565053746770 (13 digits given whereas IMEI should be of 15 digits), which resulted hardship to ascertain status from the record of the O.P.no.2. According to the contention of the OP2 complainant had visited only the O.P.No.1 and not the authorized service centre of the O.P.No.2 .if would have approached the service centre of the O.P.No.2 then prompt action would have been taken but the complainant did not approach the service centre of the O.P.no.2 and instead chose to file the present complaint. That, the O.P.No.2 is still ready and willing to repair the said product if the complainant approached the service centre of the answering O.P. Consequently allegation that there was mental pain and agony due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice are overuled as complainant has adduced no history of any service request made by the complainant. It has been categorically stated by the O.P.No.2 that the O.P.No.2 does not have any records, i.e. either the serial No.or the job number related to the alleged set and that the O.P.No.2 further requested the complainant to provide the copy of the service job sheet but the complainant never even bothered to revert and instead chose to file the present frivolous case against the O.P.No.2. This transpires itself that the complainant is pursuing the present complaint in most unfair manner for illegal enrichment and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost against the complainant and in favour ofO.P.No.2. OP2 has cited one case of Revneet Singh Bagga –versus- M/S KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,III (1999) C.P.J 28 (SC).

 

3. Heard bothe the sides. Learned advocate for complainant submitted that on 7.3.2015 purchased one Sony Erriction Mobile set on payment of Rs.20,000/- from O.P.No.1 . It developed defect.. Informed the OP1 and presented set at service station at Sambalpur. Defect was not rectified and even after issuance of pleaders notice, they did not look in to the matter. Hence, filed this petition to depress by way of replacing the set on refund the cost and allow compensation as well as cost of litigation.

               Learned advocate for O.P.No.2 submitted no cause of action mentioned in the complaint since no cause of action lies against the O.P.No.2. Complainant has also not filed the relevant documents accruing to his allegation. No expert opinion report has been filed as the set is defective. The authorised service centre is not a party to the case, who is a necessary party of this case The complainant has never been to authorize service centre to rectify the defects of the mobile phone. Prior to filing the case the complainant, only served a pleader notice to the OP1 only . There is no facts against O.P.no.2 or authorized service station of OP2. In the complainant petition that the complainant alleged that only after approached OP1 for rectification of defect of the mobile. The OP1 has also stated in his W/S that he has requested to present the mobile hand set to authorized service station against his request for service. The complainant has not filed any job sheet regarding receipt of the defective mobile set by authorized service station. Hence, there is no allegation against authorized service station in the complaint petition. From the complaint it is assessed that there is no defect at all in the mobile phone of the complainant. After sale of any product, the manufacturer only provides Service through its Service Centre for the product in warranty, but not the dealer, in this case, the complainant has not visited once to the authorized service centre OP2 can not be held guilty of defficient Servicce.

 

4. On perusal of documents it is found that :

1.    Complainant has failed to establish that he had ever been to the authorised Service Station of OP2 to avail the warranty benefit.
2.    Complainant’s allegation against OP2 are not established.
3.    Authorised Service Centre of OP2 is not a necessary party in the instant case.
4.    OP1’s contention to the fact of his advice to the complainant either to present the defective mobile hand set at the Authorised Service Centre directly or through him has not been successfully assailed by the complainant.

 

        We find latches with Complainant who have miserably failed to establish his case. We do not want to interfere.

O R D E R

 

The complaint petition is disallowed.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties keeping acknowledgement of the receipt and date thereof.

      Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 11^th day of January, 2017 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

I     agree,                                            I agree

 

 

MEMBER(W)                                 PRESIDENT                              MEMBER 

 

 

Dictated and Corrected

by me.

 

MEMBER