ORDER

10.05.2024

SH. RAJESH MEMBER

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking direction to OP to return the rectified mobile phone to complainant along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. It is stated in the complaint of complainant that on 16.02.2014 son of complainant “Ankur Bhatia” purchased a mobile phone of Sony Xperia ZL from OP1 for a consideration of Rs. 24,800/-. Same was under two years warranty.
3. It is stated that due to some issues faced in non functionality of the mobile phone, on 03.06.2014 the mobile phone was replaced with Sony Xperia Z from JP Electronics authorized Sony Service Centre vide invoice No. JP1/Fy14-06-/00001112 dt. 03.06.2014.
4. It is stated that the screen of the mobile phone was damaged due to some mishap in September 2014 and also the touch functionality was impacted. To get it rectified complainant approached the OP2 in the end of September 2014 and requested them for the needful. It is stated that the son of complainant was away from Delhi as he is working as an Engineer with M/s Infosys at Chandigarh. Complainant was told to come after approximately 10-15 days for collection of the mobile phone duly rectified in all respects.
5. It is stated that the mobile phone was not returned after a lapse of more than one month. Hence the present complaint which has been filed on behalf of Sh. Ankur Bhatia and but singed by father Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia i.e. father of the actual purchaser / Complainant.    
6. Complainant Ankur Bhatia who is the actual purchaser of the mobile phone set has approached before this Commission by way of present complaint only signed by his father Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia seeking return of mobile phone duly rectified along with interest, cost and compensation.  
7. Notice was issued to OP. Despite due service OPs neither appeared nor filed their Written Statement within statutory period, hence OP1 was proceeded Ex Parte vide order dated 29.03.2016 and OP2 was proceeded Ex Parte vide order dated 27.02.2019 by Ld. the predecessor Bench.
8. In order to substantiate allegations made in the complaint the complainant has also led his Ex Parte Evidence by way of affidavit reaffirming the averments made in the complaint but signed by the father of complainant Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia and not by complainant.
9. We have heard the complainant and perused the record available with us.
10.  As per the facts narrated by the complainant and documents filed by the complainant signed only by father of complainant sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia  the case of the complainant is that on 16.02.2014 complainant “Ankur Bhatia” purchased a mobile phone of Sony Xperia ZL from OP1 for a consideration of Rs. 24,800/-.   
11. The complainant has alleged that OPs failed to rectify the defects in the newly purchased mobile phone.
12. It is also alleged by the complainant that OP failed to adhere to its promise and didn’t even honour the express warranty provided by the OPs.
13. It is important to point out that present complaint has been filed in the name of Sh. Ankur Bhatia however same has been signed by Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia who is father of Sh. Ankur Bhatia and not signed by Ankur Bhatia the actual purchaser / consumer. The evidence by way of affidavit has also been deposed in the name of Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia and not in the name of Ankur Bhatia i.e. the actual purchaser / consumer.   
14. Complainant has filed an authority letter which provides as under:-

AUTHORITY LETTER

I, Ankur Bhatia S/o Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia R/o 213, B-5, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi 85, hereby authorise to my father Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia to file and process my mobile phone case to the Consumer Court on my behalf.

Signature – (Sd. By Ankur Bhatia)

Name

Address

Dated

Place

15. It is noticeable that above said authority letter has not been signed / accepted by father of Complainant i.e. Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia. It also does not authorize the father of Complainant i.e. Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia to sign the complaint or Evidence by way of affidavit. Therefore said authority letter issued in favour of Sh. Bal Krishan Bhatia by Sh. Ankur Bhatia cannot authorize Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma to sign the pleadings or cure the inherent defect in the present complaint. It is stated in the complaint that the son of complainant Sh. Ankur Bhatia is working as an Engineer with M/s Infosys at Chandigarh. It appears son of complainant Sh. Ankur Bhatia is a major and can legally sign the complaint as such nothing prevented Sh. Ankur Bhatia to sign the complaint and depose Evidence by way of Affidavit.
16. It is also pointed out that Bill / Invoice dated 16.02.2014 of the alleged defective mobile phone is addressed to ‘CASH’ and is not in favour of any particular person.   It is also to be pointed out that Extended Warranty card dated 16.02.2014 and Service Job Card dated 03.11.2014 pertaining to alleged defective mobile phone are also in the name of complainant / Sh. Ankur Bhatia. Therefore, present complaint has to be signed by Ankur Bhatia and not by anyone else. 
17. In view of above discussions this Commission is of the considered view that since the present complaint is not signed by complainant hence the present complaint is not maintainable and therefore is dismissed.
18. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission  on 10.05.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR  CHANDNA             RAJESH

PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                     MEMBER