Complainant Inderjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to repair the mobile phone or replace it with new one alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation fee of Rs.8,000/-, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one mobile  phone namely Gionee Splus from G.K.Tele Communication, Gurdaspur. The mobile phone was not charging properly due to which he was suffering problem. He approached G.K. Tele Communication, Gurdaspur  and discussed the problem and he advised the complainant to visit Gionee Care Centre at Gurdaspur. He approached opposite parties and gave the mobile phone for repair. Opposite parties after checking the mobile told him that jeck of his mobile phone was not working properly. He gave his consent to change the jeck of mobile phone and opposite party issued visiting card as a token of custody of mobile phone. It was next pleaded that after a few days opposite parties called him and requested to approach its care centre and he approached the care centre they told that some other part of complainant’s mobile was not working properly.  The total amount was settled Rs.1200/- for repair of the mobile phone but opposite party did not repair his mobile phone. It was further pleaded that lastly he approached to opposite parties but they did not repair the mobile phone and on 20.7.2018 they informed him that the touch screen of his mobile was not working and demanded Rs.5,000/- as charges of touch screen. He tried to know the reasons of damages of touch screen and employee of opposite parties told him that during the repair of mobile phone the touch screen was heated and it  got damaged due to the negligence of opposite parties. The opposite parties has totally damaged the mobile phone and refused him to repair and demanded more money than the settled amount. He also served a legal notice on 25.7.2018 to the opposite parties through his counsel but no reply was given by the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

3.         Opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant had purchased one mobile phone namely Gionee Splus from G.K.Tele Communication, Gurdaspur.  No date of purchasing the said mobile phone is mentioned. In the year 2017, the complainant made a complaint that the mobile was not getting charged properly and on the complaint of the complainant the mobile was repaired and after that no such complaint was made by the complainant. It was next submitted that again in the year 2018, the complainant filed a complaint to the opposite party no.1 that the display of the mobile was not working whereas there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1. It is wrong that the opposite party no.1 demanded  Rs.1200/- from the complainant for repairing the  mobile and it was also incorrect that later on the opposite party no.1 demanded from the complainant Rs.5,000/- for repairing the mobile whereas in this matter all the decisions is to be taken by the company  i.e. opposite party no.2.  If any amount is demanded from the complainant by the opposite party no.1, in this connection the Job Sheet is to be issued by the opposite party no.1 but the Job Sheet has not been attached with the complaint. Opposite party no.1 lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

4.      Opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that  the complainant has very conveniently distorted the material facts and failed to disclose the facts which do not support the false claim of complainant. The facts averred by complainant are wrong, baseless and concocted, hence, cannot be relied upon. It was submitted that complainant purchased the mobile handset on 18.7.2016. Complainant approached service center on 30.6.2017 for having the same repaired i.e. jack problem. The opposite party duly repaired mobile handset and handed over the same to complainant within reasonable time i.e. 3.7.2017. It was also submitted that onus to prove defect in the product is on complainant. It was denied that the complainant had submitted the said phone at Authorized Service Centre on 20.7.2018 and Service Centre had demanded Rs.5000/- for its repair etc. as mentioned in his complaint. However, complainant in present complaint made only bare averments with respect to manufacturing defect in mobile handset but failed to produce any document/evidence. Hence, present complaint ought to be dismissed for want of evidence. It was next submitted that mobile handset is electronic device and is subject to limited warranty and does not include any damage due to ordinary wear and tear. All terms and conditions of warranty, pertaining to the mobile handset, were duly explained to the complainant at the relevant time and he admitted the same. The opposite party cannot be held responsible for any damage caused due to complainant’s own fault and the present complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable, as the prescribed period of warranty of mobile handset has already been expired, as the warranty for mobile handset was for the period of 1 year from the date of purchase. The complainant failed to prove/establish any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.2 was not received back. Ld.counsel for the complainant withdraws the present complaint against opposite party no.2 by giving separate statement on 22.1.2019.

6.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1, Legal notice Ex.C-2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C5.

7.       Alongwith the written statement, counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of  Sh.Tarun Arora, owner of M/s.Arora Communication alongwith two documents.

8.       Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite party.

9.      Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.

10.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments filed by complainant as well as arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

11.     Ex.C-4 is the photocopy of the Invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from G.K.Tele service on 15.7.2016 for a sum of Rs.16,400/-. Ex.C-5 is the visiting card of opposite party no.1.

12.     The case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile phone and some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and it stopped charging properly. The complainant approached the opposite parties and gave his mobile phone for repair. Opposite parties after checking the mobile phone told that the ‘Jeck’ of the  mobile phone was not working properly and the complainant gave his consent to change the ‘Jeck’ of the mobile phone. It is alleged that after a few days when the complainant approached the Service Centre, they told the complainant that some other part of the mobile phone was not working properly and demanded Rs.1200/- for its repair. But the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile phone. On 20.7.2018, they informed the complainant that the touch screen of the mobile phone was not working and demanded Rs.5000/- as charges for repairing the touch screen. It is further averred that when the complainant tried to know the reason for the damage of touch screen, opposite parties told that the same was damaged due to heating up of the touch screen during repair of the mobile phone by the opposite parties. Whereas the opposite party no.1 in its written statement has submitted that in the year 2017, complainant had made a complaint that his mobile phone was not charging properly and the opposite party no.1 got the mobile phone repaired and after that no complaint was lodged by the complainant. The opposite party no.3 in its written statement submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 18.7.2016. On 30.6.2017, he approached the service centre for getting the mobile phone repaired i.e. Jeck problem. The opposite party duly repaired the handset and handed over the mobile phone to the complainant on 3.7.2017.Opposite party no.3 has specifically denied that the complainant had submitted his mobile phone to the Authorized Service Centre on 20.7.2018 and the service centre demanded Rs.5,000/- for its repair. The complainant has only made bare averments with respect to defect in the mobile phone without producing any documentary evidence on record.

13.     In the present case, though the complainant has alleged that there occurred problem in the mobile phone and the opposite party demanded Rs.5000/- for its repair,  but he has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to prove that there ever occurred any problem in the mobile phone and the opposite parties demanded Rs.5,000/- for its repair. Thus, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties.

14.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is observed that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                     

            (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                              President 

Announced:                                                 (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

Ist September 2021                                                       Member

*MK*