Orissa

Cuttak

CC/57/2019

Smrutiranjan Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Patra Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.57/2019

 

Sri Smruti Ranjan Rao,

At:BholamianBazaar,Shaikh Bazaar,

P.O:BuxiBazaar,P.S:LalBag,Cuttack.                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Proprietor, Patra Electronics,

C.D.A,SECT-6,

Infront of Rotary Eye Hospital,Cuttack-753014.

 

2.        Managing Director,Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,

5^thFloor,TanishqBuilding,Camac Street,

Circus Avenue,Kolkata-700017,P.S:Arcadia Central,(West Bengal).

 

3.        Proprietor ShreejalServices,Sri Ram Nagar,

Badambadi,Plot No.203/2901,196/2977,

Unit-34,Cuttack-753012.                                                ,... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      28.05.2019

Date of Order:    22.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1       :          Mr. B.B.Bhol,,Advocate.

For the O.Ps no.2 & 3:                     None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

               Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Sony mobile of model G3416 XA1 BLUE having sl.no.35990608084991 359906080845006 after obtaining finance vide FINANCE no.215192738 from O.P no.1 on 27.9.17.  The warranty card was valid for a year with effect from 27.9.17 but the said mobile phone of the complainant when stopped working within the warranty period, he had gone to the Sony Mobile Service Centre of the O.Ps at Sriram Nagar,Badambadi for repairing the same.  There the service mechanic charged the complainant a sum of Rs.10,586.66p though the mobile phone was within the warranty period.  Thus, according to the complainant, this was unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps for which he had to file this case seeking compensation alobgwith cost from the O.Ps with a direction to replace the defective mobile set.  The complainant has thus claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards the illegal service charges levied and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment to him together with litigation expenses of Rs.40,000/-.

               He has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.            Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not contested this case, O.Ps no.2 & 3 have been set exparte vide order dt.23.4.22.  As such, it is only the O.P no.1 who has contested this case and has filed its written version.  According to the written version of O.P no.1 the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  O.P no.1 is not the manufacturer or service provider of the product and thus according to him, the case against him is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  Ofcourse he admits about the complainant to have purchased a mobile phone set of Sony Company from him since because he is the dealer of the said product.  But he is in no way concerned about the demands of the service mechanic who had claimed a sum of Rs.10,586.66p from the complainant.  Thus, he has prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.

3.            Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the contents of written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps& if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

               Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Sony mobile phone set from O.P no.1 on 27.9.2017.  There is no dispute as regards to the warranty of the said mobile phone set for a year from the date of its purchase.  From the copy of the Sony authorized service centre as attached to the complaint petition which is the service job sheet, it is noticed that the mobile phone set of the complainant was given by him for repair and the estimated cost as reflected therein at annexure-3 is of Rs.10,586.66p..  But on perusal of the copy of the letter as annexed by the complainant himself alongwith his complaint petition addressed to him as sent by the service centre in-charge of M/s. Shrijal Service Manager that the mobile phone set of the complainant is lying there since 19.9.18 with job date of 9.12.18 and the model of the said mobile phone set is G 3416.  The charges levied as reflected therein appears to be Rs.118/-.  There is also a request seeking option of the complainant to get it delivered at his home with charges of Rs.300/- if he so wishes.  This shows that prior to filing of this case, the mobile phone set of the complainant was duly repaired by the authorised service centre of the O.Ps and when the complainant had not gone to collect the same, the authorised service centre manager had written to the complainant in order to collect the same reflecting a repair charge of Rs.118/- and not Rs.10,586.66p as alleged.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.  This issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the aforesaid discussions, it can never be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.   Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd  day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.             

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                         Member