Judgment dated 16-05-2016

            This is a complaint made by Dr. Madhumita Roy Bhowmick against the Store Manager, The Mobile Store Limited, 107, Santoshpur Avenue, Kolkata- 700 075, P.S. Survey Park praying for refund of repairing cost of Rs.15,311/- and compensation for mental harassment.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a mobile phone Model name HTC one M8 Gold from store of the OP on 30.9.2014. Said handset suddenly stopped working on 5.11.2015.Complainant took the handset to the HTC authorized service centre who informed her that the main board is required to be replaced and also told her to get it repaired through OP free of cost since it was within the extended warranty period. Despite repeated request OP refused to repair the mobile stating that physical damage has taken place. So Complainant got it repaired from the service centre after paying Rs.15,311. Thereafter Complainant issued a notice to the OP for paying Rs.15,311/-.

            On perusal of the comp0laint and after hearing Complainant’s husband in person the complaint was admitted. After receiving notice OP did not appear and so the case was heard ex-parte.

Decisions with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief and also has filed certain Xerox copy of the documents.

            In the affidavit-in-chief Complainant has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint in the form of documents. Xerox copy of letter addressed to OP is filed which reveals that Complainant has asked from the OP for payment of Rs.15,311. Further Xerox copy of extended warranty has been filed on perusal of which it appears that there are several terms and conditions mentioned therein. One of the terms appears to be damaged caused by the negligence or misuse of the mobile hand set. There is no whisper in the complaint as to how the mobile got damaged and how the damage is not covered under the terms mentioned in the extended warranty. Further a Xerox copy of the receipt by which Rs.15,311/- was paid has been filed.

            So it appears that the reason for the damage of mobile hand set is not forth-coming. Further it is clear from the Xerox copy of the paper as to who issued the extended warranty. Only the seal of mobile store is affixed which bears the signature which is also not legible. Original of it has not been produced. So, we are not convinced as to whether OP issued the extended warranty and did not fall under the terms and conditions mentioned here.

            It is also not forth-coming as to what amount Complainant paid for extended warranty. There is no endorsement of the manufacturer on the extended warranty. It is of common prudence that normally warranty is extended by manufacturer and not dealers. As such it is clear that Complainant failed to prove the allegation made in the complaint.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

             CC/13/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.