State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ch. Sudhansu Sekhar Patra vs Krishna Agencies. on 23 September, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA,
CUTTACK
First Appeal No 24412014
(From an order dt.29.03.2014 passed by the Learned Dist.Forum,
Kandhmal,phulbani in C.C. No I ll20l3)
l. Ch, Sudhansu Sekhar Patra,
2. Ch. Ranjita Patra, S/O & D.O- Late Suryanarayan
Patra. Both are resident of At-P.O-Phulbani'fown,
Dist: Kandhamal.
--------Appellant.
Vs
l. Krishna Agencies In fiont of State Bank , Main Road,
Phulbani AIIPO/PS- Phulbani Town. f)ist - Kandhamal.
2. Samsung Service care M/S Pattnaik Computech.
At- Madikunda Square, Phulbani PO/PS- Phulbani Town,
Dist: Kandhamal.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Suit No. 101,102 &.
103.1" floor Copia Corporate Suits, plot No. 09, Jasala
District Centre, Newdelhi-1 10025 G.H-68-29923 A
(Rev. 1 I )P.H-O 1 1 43661234, Fax-0 1 1 43661299
--Respondent.
For the Appellant - Mr Santosh Kumar Nanda, Adv and associates
For the Respondent - M/S Suryakanta Dwibedi,Adv and associates
t4
-2-
PRESENT:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P. CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
AND
DR. P.K. PRUSTY, MEMBBR
DATED THE 23 SEPTEMBER, 2022
ORDER
DR.P.K.PRUSTY. MBMBER The case of the Complainant in brief is that the complainant No.1 Sudhansu Sekhar Patra S/O: Late SuryanarayanPatra purchased a Samsung phone model BT-7722 on 07-02-2012 from M/s Krishna Agency, Main road, Phulbani. The same mobile set was presented as a gift to his sister Miss Ranjta Patra complainant No-2 in the present complaint. On 2l-02-2012 there was some problem in the mobile phone and the complainant No.2 approached the authorized service centre-O.P.2 for repair with the original bill. On 24-02-2012 O.P.z returned the mobile phone to the complainant No.2 after repairing the same but not the bill. It is inter- alia alleged by the complainant No.2 that though she approached several times but could not able to get the bill of the phone she submitted earlier. Subsequently on 19- 02-2013 the Complainant approached to O.P No.2 for repair of the mobile set as there was some def'ect. It was told to the complainant No.2 that since \4_ -3- the warranty period is over by that date, repair can be made on payment basis which was agreed by the complainant & paidks.2490l- towards repair charge. Complainant No.2 received the repaired mobile set on 22-02-2013. Since o.P .2 charged money for the repair, the complaint was filed for deficiency in service on the part of o.p seeking a new mobile phone & I ,:
compensation.
2. O.P No.1 & 2 filed their version denying the allegation made by the complainant .The complainant No.2 has fired affidavit. one Sri Binod Kumar padhy has also filed affidavit as one of the witness of the Complainant No.2 and was cross examined by op as pw-l. Neither any affidavit has been filed by the O.P in token of their evidence nor adduced any oral evidence.
3.After hearing counsel of both the parties, Learned District Forum has passed the following order:-
xxx xxx xxx 'The complaint petition filed by the complainant is dismissed due to devoid of merit but without cost.
\a-.-
-4-
4. Leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that Learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the case with proper perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that though sufficient evidence were provided before the Leamed District Forum but the same was not taken into consideration. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
5. Considered the submission of leamed counsel for the appellant & perused the DFR including the impugned order.
6. It is admitted factthat the complainant has purchased Samsung mobile from O.P No.l on 07-02-2012 .It is also admitted fact that after few days of purchase the said mobile phone developed some problem. It is also not in dispute that the complainant approached the service center O.P.2 for repair. The problem was rectified by oP.2. It is alleged that the complainant deposited the original bill along with the mobile phone to which the o.p ,2 denies. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the complainant in which it is not mentioned from which shop the mobile set was purchased. Further complainant in its Complaint petition of dt. 05-02-2013 enclosed a copy of the cash/ credit bill of M/S Pattanaik Computech, Madikunda Square, Phulbani dt 19-02-2013 which is a later date of filing the complaint petition.
\ \4--
-5-Thus this raises a doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint. Observing all the discrepancy, Learned District Forum has rightly observed that the complaint petition 8. affidavit filed by the complainant are contradictory in nature. Further the witness of the complainant when cross examined by the O.P No.2 also did not reveal any thing. It is settled law that the onus lies on the complainant to prove its case. Here in this case the complainant has failed to prove its case. Complainant has not submitted copy of the warranty card. O.P has mentioned us its written version that filled in warranty card was issued and the war-ranty period for such phone is one year from the date of purchase. This has not been challenged by the complainant. It is settled law that unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted. Hence when the complaint brought the phone for repair on 19-02-2013 which is beyond one year from there date of purchase of 07-02-2012 and O.P.2 has asked for payment for the repair of the mobile phone after the expiry of warranty period. There is no any effor on the part of O.P.2. Fu(her :-
deficiency in service against O.P .l & 2 were not proved by the complainant. It has been observed by the Learned District Forum that the evidence given by the complainant is not clear, cogent & corroborative to prove their case.
B-
n -6- Since the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of O.P O.Ps are not liable.
7.ln view of the discussions made as above, in our considered opinion the Learned District Forum has rightly analyzedthe case & have come to the conclusion. We agree with the finding and do not find any reason to interfere with the said impugned order of the Learned District Forum. Hence the order of the Learned District Forum is confirmed.
8. Appeal sans merit & hence dismissed.
9. No cost.
10. Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from confonent or website of this commission to treat the same as copy supplied from this commission.
E+^"r ( Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J ) (President) L'&'.
(Dr. P.K. Prusty) (Member)