Haryana

StateCommission

A/865/2015

NARESH HARJAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHALLA COMMUNICAIONS - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          First Appeal No.    865 of 2015

Date of Institution:  08.10.2015

Date of Decision:    21.04.2016

 

 

Naresh Harjai aged about 43 years son of late Sh. Roshan Lal, resident of V.P.O Naharpur, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Bhalla Communications, 1, New Hamida Colony, Opposite Luxmi Theatre, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor.

 

2.      Net Communications, Reliance Fresh, Pyare Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, Authorized Service Centre of GIONEE Mobile, through its proprietor/Incharge/Manager.

 

3.      U.T. Electronics Private Limited, Registered Office SCO No.363-364, Sector 35B, Chandigarh – 160022 through its proprietor/authorized person.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

Present:     None for the appellant.

                   None for the respondents.

                            

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Naresh Harjai-complainant against the order dated September 09^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents.  Respondents No.1 & 2 were duly served upon but despite service, they did not appear.

3.      Complainant purchased mobile handset GIONEE-GI make from respondent No.1 for Rs.9500/- on August 03^rd, 2013.  After a few days, the complainant noticed some defects in the mobile handset.  He approached respondents.  After getting it repaired, respondent No.1 returned the mobile handset to the complainant but the problem still persisted. The complainant requested the respondents to change the mobile handset but they did not pay any heed. 

4.      The respondents did not appear before the District Forum and were proceeded ex parte.

5.      Indisputably, the complainant purchased mobile handset from the respondent No.1.  There is no evidence led by the complainant to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.  The only evidence led was that the mobile handset was taken to respondent No.2 and job card was prepared and after repairing the mobile handset, it was returned to the complainant.  It was stated by the complainant that he was orally told by the respondent No.2 that there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.  On the basis of evidence led, it is not possible to held that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.  Thus, the order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

  

Announced 21.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK