DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 47 of 19-02-2007<br /> Decided on : 10-05-2007 <br /> <br /> Chamkaur Singh, Guru, aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Bikar Singh Guru C/o General Manager, District Industries Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Bhagta Sales House, Near Bus Stand, P.R.T.C. Shop No. 16, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Kanwal Preet Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Mobile hand set make Nokia-2112 belonging to the complainant had become defective due to which he had contacted the opposite party. He was assured that set would be repaired. He got the set repaired from the opposite party against payment of Rs. 450/- vide invoice-cum-receipt dated 5.2.07. Opposite party provided one year warranty. On the next day, mobile hand set started giving problem. It gave assurance that set would be repaired within a day or so and he should collect it after 4 days. Accordingly, he left the set with the opposite party for repair. After 4 days, he again came to the opposite party in the accompany of his friend for collecting the mobile hand set. Attitude of the proprietor/partner of the opposite party was indifferent. He was told that nothing can be done. Hand set was handed over in pieces. When he raised protest, opposite party hurdled abuses and used unparliamentary language Complainant made repeated requests to repair the set as it was within the warranty period, but to no effect. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act')) has been preferred seeking directions from this forum to the opposite party to repair the mobile hand set or to compensate him by way of paying its price to the tune of Rs. 2832/-; pay Rs. 10,000/- as damages on account of mental tension and loss of reputation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed reply taking objections that complaint has been filed to cause harassment and it is false and frivolous. Neither mobile hand set was repaired nor was it purchased from it (opposite party). Inter-alia its plea is that he has purchased display worth Rs. 450/- from it. It has nothing to do with the functioning or performance of mobile hand set. Moreover, complainant has already returned the display and has received Rs. 450/-. Hence, question of deficiency in service on its part does not arise. It refutes the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations averred in the complaint, he has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and photocopy of warranty- memo-payment receipt (Ex. C-2).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party affidavit of Sh. Satpal, Proprietor (Ex. R-1) has been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> 6. Learned counsel for the complainant urged that mobile hand set was got repaired by the complainant from the opposite party and that it had given warranty of one year for further repair of the set in case of any defect in it. Accordingly, opposite party was required to repair the set when it was again taken to it on the next day especially when it was within the period of warranty. Opposite party handed over the set in pieces without repair. Hence, there is deficiency in service on its part.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that set was not got repaired from the opposite party nor warranty for its repair was given. Complainant had simply purchased the display of the mobile hand set for which receipt was issued. Subsequently, display was returned by the complainant against Rs. 450/-.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Material question for determination in this case is as to whether mobile hand set of the complainant was repaired by the opposite party and warranty for further repairs for one year incase of any defect in it was given ? Reply to our minds is in the negative. So far affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply bracketed with the affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Sat Pal, Proprietor of the opposite party. Complainant alleges that on the next day after the set was repaired, he had contacted the opposite party alongwith his friend. He did not disclose the name and other particulars of that friend. He did not muster courage to place his affidavit on record. Complainant is relying upon Warranty memo-cum receipt, copy of which is Ex. C-2. A perusal of this document does not reveal that mobile hand set was repaired. Rather set was found okay. Only one display has been shown to have been sold by the opposite party to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 450/- for which warranty given is of one year. Breakage is not within the warranty. Complainant has not led cogent and convincing evidence to establish that mobile hand set was got repaired and warranty of one year was given for further repairs in case of defects in it. There is no satisfactory evidence of the complainant about his visit to the opposite party on the next day after 5.2.07. Since warranty cannot be concluded for repair of the set, question of repairing the set by the opposite party did not arise. It is not the case of the complainant that there was defect in the display. Even if it is taken for arguments sake that complainant brought the mobile hand set to the opposite party on 6.2.07 and it was not repaired, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party particularly when it was not bound to repair it. Moreover, it does not sound to reason that opposite party with sale of display for Rs. 450/- could give warranty of one year for repair of the set. <br /> 10. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 10-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />