BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sanjeev Mehta, s/o Sh.Krishan Kumar Mehta, r/o #283, Phase-3A, Mohali

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

2.      Meridian Mobile Private Limited, L-2A, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi through its Director.

3.      Mr. Jatinder, Accel Frontline Limited, SCO 409-410, 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

4.      Mr. Ankit, Accel Frontline Limited, SCO 409-410, 2^nd Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Upender Prashar, Adv. for complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh.Jitender Singh, Sr.Executive/Representative on behalf of OP No.2.

Sh.Rahul, Assistant Customer Executive/Representative on behalf of OP No.3 &4.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant had purchased one Fly 2040I Metel Mobile Phone from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.2,890/- on 18.07.2009. After the purchase of the said mobile, when he went to his house to activate the mobile, he found that there was a slight crack in the screen.  On 20.07.2009, he visited the shop of OP-1 and informed about the aforesaid defect.  It was told by OP-1 that nothing could be done and if he wanted to get the same repaired, a sum of Rs.850/- would be charged from him. The complainant made several visits to OP-1 for the replacement of the defective mobile set but was of no use at all.  After that he came to know that the said mobile was manufactured in September, 2007, however the same was sold to him on 18.07.2009 and was never informed to him that it was an old model.    After that he sent a legal notice to OP-1 on 24.07.2009 for the replacement of the above said mobile. On 30.07.2009 the complainant received a call from OP-3, the authorized service centre of OP-1, who directed him to visit M/s G.S.M. Master, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh for replacement of the said mobile set.  When he visited M/s G.S.M. Master, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh again it was told to him that a sum of Rs.850/- would be charged from him as repair charges. Then, he immediately contacted OP-3, who then stated that the company would not replace the said mobile without repair charges. Again on 3.08.2009, he met the Proprietor of OP-1 regarding the above facts but Proprietor of OP-1 misbehaved with him and said that this was their routine matter and he can do what ever he wanted to do. Thereafter, due to urgency and the need, the complainant on the advice of his counsel got repaired the aforesaid mobile set from M/s G.S.M. Master, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh and paid a sum of Rs.850/- for the repair of LCD. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused him tremendous mental tension and mental agony.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OP-1.  Accordingly the OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte. 

3.           In the written reply the Representative of OP-2 submitted that the complainant went to M/s G.S.M. Master (who had not been impleaded as party) with a display problem wherein it was told to him that the display was broken and any physical damage was not covered under warranty.  After few days the complainant again went there and got the display repaired on chargeable basis. Since the display of the cell phone was broken by the complainant they-(OP-2) ceased to be liable for any problem faced by the complainant. They submitted that before purchasing the said mobile phone, the complainant ought to have checked the date of the manufacturing and also opened the seal of the phone box and in any event, if the phone was manufactured in September 2007 but sold on 18.08.2009, they cannot be held liable in any manner. It was further clarified that there was no crack in the screen when it was packed and the same could have caused due to the mishandling of the phone by the complainant himself. It was further submitted that the alleged misrepresentation was made by OP-1 for which OP-2 could not  be made liable inasmuch as the OP-1 was neither an authorized dealer nor authorized service centre of OP-2.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the Representative pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.           On the other hand the Representative of OP-3 and OP-4 submitted that there was no Jatinder Singh in their employee list as mentioned by the complainant. They attend only those calls that were logged at their service centre but the complainant neither visited their service center nor were any calls logged for the mobile in question. He submitted that the complainant had deliberately suppressed the warranty conditions that covered the mobile where “display broken” mobiles were not covered under warranty contract and service charges had to be paid for replacement of the same, therefore in no way they were liable for this defect. Except for the oral statements made by the complainant, he had not filed any corroborative documents to prove a case against them.  He further denied the names of the two persons named in this petition, as employees of Accel and submitted that the claims made against individuals would not bind a company unless it was done as a representative of the company with the due authorization of the company for the particular work.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the Representative of OP-3 and OP-4 pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal. 

5.                    The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

6.                    We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and Representatives of OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 and have also perused the record. 

7.             The contention of the complainant is that the mobile set was manufactured in 2007 but was sold to him in 2009 and therefore it was an unfair trade policy on the part of the OPs.  This contention has been denied by the OPs. When the complainant has already seen the mobile phone there was no such question about the year of manufacture at the time of purchase.  The OPs cannot be said to be guilty of adopting unfair trade practice.  Infact the purchase made by the complainant was of a specific mobile handset, which was chosen by him and was delivered to him.  Whether it was manufactured in 2007, 2008 or 2009, this contention cannot be raised now at this stage.

8.             It is also contended by the complainant that when he went home, he found a slight crack in the screen. His contention is that this crack existed since before he purchased the mobile phone but there is no evidence produced by him to prove the same.  He had inspected the mobile phone and if there had been any such crack in its screen when he purchased it, he would have declined to purchase the same but he did not.  The mobile set was purchased on 18.07.2009 and it was on 7.08.2009 when he complained about the crack in the screen vide Annexure C-3.  The contention of the OP is that infact the screen appears to have cracked due to mishandling by the complainant. Otherwise the complainant would have taken the mobile set immediately to the service centre on 18.07.2009.

9.             The complainant has tried to fabricate evidence in this case by introducing a notice Annexure C-2.  His contention is that this notice was issued by his lawyer on 24.07.2009.  He however did not produce any document to suggest as to how this notice was sent.  If it was sent by registered post, the postal receipt and the acknowledgment received from the OP should have been placed on file.  If it was sent by UPC, then a certificate to that effect should have been produced by him but he did not.  The OPs have denied having received any such notice.  It is therefore clear that the complainant has tried to fabricate evidence to dodge this Forum.  Such persons who are not honest in their dealings are not entitled to any relief, even on merits.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.