Dt. of filing- 22/09/2017
Dt. of Judgement- 11/10/2018
Mr. Ayan Sinha,Member.
This petition of complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Sri Ranjet Kumar Patwa alleging defect in goods against Opposite Parties ( referred as OP hereinafter ) namely (1) M/s. Sa Ram Marketing represented by General Manager (2) M/s. Sonali Infonet represented by General Manager (3) M/s Amazon India Customer Care represented by General Manager.
Case of the complainant in brief is that complainant being desirous to purchase a Cellular Phone checked website of OP No.3 and being satisfied purchased a cellular phone on 11.02.2017 from OP Nos. 1 & 3 by paying Rs. 10,999/- through online with help of his employer Jayanta Roy which was delivered on 13.02.2017 but immediate after receiving the said phone the complainant noticed that ringtone of the said phone was not working at all and in such situation the complainant immediately contacted OP No.1 and receiving advise from OP No.1 contacted OP No.3 on 14.02.2017 and the OP No.2 replaced the said cellular phone by a new cellular phone of same model but afterwards the complainant found that the camera of the said phone was non-functioning and finding the said defect the complainant approached OP No.2, service centre but on the said occasion the OP No.2 refused to repair or replace the same on the ground that the complainant was responsible for the causing damage to the cellular phone and at the same time offered the complainant to get the said phone repaired on payment of Rs. 9,500/- and the complainant being aggrieved with such offer sent a demand notice through his Ld. Advocate on 19.07.2017 in reply to which OP No.2 by letter dated 26.07.2017 informed hat mark of liquid contact had been detected and , therefore, the cellular phone could not be repaired within warranty period since the same was under exclusion clause. The complainant by filing the instant petition of complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund Rs.10,999/- to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment, cost and other reliefs.
The complainant annexed photocopies of letter dt.19.07.2017 issued by the complaint to the OPs, Tax Invoice dt.11.02.2017 generated in favour of Jayanta Roy, DOA Certificate dt. 16.02.2017.
Letter dated 26.07.2017 issued by OP No,2 service job sheet.
Noices were served but the OP Nos. 1 & 3 did not turn up. So the case proceeded exparte against OP Nos. 1 & 3 vide order No.11 dated 05.03.2018.
The OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that the instant consumer complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. This OP has further stated that allegation raised by the complainant regarding repairing cost of Rs. 9,500/- demanded by this OP in baseless. Moreover, on receiving letter dt. 19.09.2017 the OP No,2 communicated the same to their Head Office and got intimation from the Head Office that issue of liquid damage has not been covered under provision of warranty .The OP No.2 has further stated that being service centre they performed their obligation and , therefore, there is no deficiency on their part in providing service and, accordingly prayed for dismissal of this case.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The OP No,2 remained absent.
Points for determination :
- Whether he complainant is a Consumer
- Whether here is any deficiency on the part of the OPs
- Whether he complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision withreasons
Point Nos.1 & 2 :
On perusal of record it appears that one cellular phone under brand name Coolpad Note 5 was sold by Sai Ram Marketing ( OP No.1)through the website of Amazon. In (OP No.3) at a consideration of Rs. 10,999/- with billing and shipping address shown as Shri Jayanta Roy, G-53 ‘Dakshinapan Shopping Complex, 2, Gariahat Road (South ) Kolkata- 700068 and the said phone was delivered at the above mentioned address. It further appears from the documents on record, a copy of DOA Certificate had been filed by the complainant which was issued by OP No.2 in favour of Sri Jayanta Roy, the employer of the complainant who has described the complainant as a beneficiary in this respect. Although the said DOA document clearly reflects that there was fault in low audio out put in a cellular phone with IME No. 911533256125616. It is , however,evident that the IMEI No. differs from the invoice copy where it is mentioned as No.91533325825614. The job sheet dt. 3.4.2017also clearly reflects customer name as Sri Jayanta Roy with Mobile IMEI Serial No.911533256270826 which maybe the IM I number of the phone which had been replaced earlier. The complainant has also submitted the original packing box of the phone contained the IMEI No. s 911533256270826 as it mentioned in the Box.
Further complainant has submitted that the service Engineer put his remark. as “ liquid found” falsely as the complainant never let liquid enter into the cellular phone but he did not challenge that remark by adducing any authentic document like expert’so opinion. Hence,he failed to prove his allegation.
Under such circumstances, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case.
Point Nos. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
Since point Nos. 1 & 2 decided negative there is no scope to discuss point No.3.
In the result, the consumer complaint does not succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That CC/562/2017 and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed ex parte against OP No.1 & 3 with cost.
