Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/148

Baibhaw Chaurasia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The SARF Trading - Opp.Party(s)

Poonam

05 May 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs 11,358/- the price of the cell phone and to pay Rs. 5,000/- & Rs. 2,000/- respectively as compensation and litigation cost to him.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased cell phone from O.P.No.1 on payment of Rs. 11,358/- through online mode but it was not properly functioning hence he gave the cell phone to O.P.No.2 for its repair who replied that since cell phone is having no EMEI number hence it will be repaired by the company itself. Further case is that company also has not rectified the defects and problem rather fail to repair it permanently and returned the hand set. In spite of issuance of legal notice no action was taken towards redressal of grievance hence case has been filed.
3.   O.Ps. have not appeared inspite of due service of notice hence case  has been proceeded Ex-parte against them.
4.  On behalf of complainant photo copy of the payment receipt with warranty statement regarding purchase of the cell phone (Annexure A) and photo copy of legal notice (Annexure-B) have been filed and except it no other evidence either oral or documentary has been produced.
5.  Only question for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed?
6.  On perusal of Annexure A it appears that it is warranty statement through which seller warranty for one year has been given in respect to purchased item which was purchased on Rs. 11,358/-. Annexure-B is the photo copy of Advocate’s Notice alleged to be issued on 15.10.2015 but there is no paper or evidence to show that said advocate’s notice was dispatched and it was handed over to the O.P. on his correct address. Further no evidence has been brought on record to show that the purchased item was having any defect and said defect has not been removed by the O.P. inspite of request by the complainant. In absence of any evidence regarding any deficiency in service by O.P. the case is not maintainable at all because there is no cause of action for the same.
7.  Thus, we find and hold that complainant has failed to prove his case against the O.P. in respect to deficiency in service and there is no evidence to show any cause of action for the case. Hence this case is dismissed with cost.