Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1094/2012

Mr.Satbir S/o Budh Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhalla Communication - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.Dhanda

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 1094 of 2012.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 9.10.2012

                                                                                             Date of decision: 26.8.2015.

Satbir Singh son of Sh. Budh Ram, resident of village Tajakpur, P.O. Pansra, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Bhalla Communications, near Luxmi Cinema, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.
2. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Road, Delhi, commercial plaza, Radisson Complex, 2^nd Floor, Gurgaon Road, Delhi 110037, through its Manager/Authorized person.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Opposite parties.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Om Singh Dhanda, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OPs already ex-parte.        

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Satibir Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying to direct the OPs to replace the mobile phone with new one or to return the cost of mobile in question i.e. Rs. 4500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realization alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Mobile set Nokia C2-03, bearing IMEI No. 359736043238068 on 14.2.2012 from respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs. 4500/-  vide Bill No. 8370 dated 14.2.2012. It has been further alleged that the respondent No.1          ( hereinafter referred as OP No.1) is authorized dealer of Nokia Mobiles in Yamuna Nagar  whereas OP No.2 is manufacturer of the aforesaid mobile/ product. It has been further alleged that at the time of purchasing the said mobile set, the OP No.1 has given guarantee and warranty of one year in all respect with regard to the said mobile set on behalf of Op No.2.  Since the very beginning of purchase of mobile set, the complainant was facing the problem of automatically switching off the mobile set as it started. The complainant has approached the OP No.1 many times regarding the problem and OP No.1 sent the mobile to service centre of Nokia Care and they removed the defect from the mobile phone, thereafter the mobile phone run smoothly for only some time but the same defect again started in the phone and now the phone started switching off very soon due to which the complainant has been suffering from lot of mental agony and harassment. The complainant again approached to OP No.1 to remove the defect from the mobile phone or to replace the mobile phone with new one but service centre of the OP refused to remove the defect and also demanded huge amount from the complainant. It has been further mentioned that the OPs have played unfair trade practice and also committed deficiency and negligence in service. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of both the parties despite service through registered post dated 5.7.2013 & 10.12.2014, hence they were  proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7.8.2013 and 20.1.2015 respectively.   

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 14.2.2012 as Annexure C-1 and Photo copy of warranty card as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

6.                     From the perusal of Ex. C-1 which is bill of mobile, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile Nokia C-2-03 from OP No.1 vide bill No. 8370 dated 14.2.2012 for Rs. 4500/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile, OP No.1 has given guarantee and warranty of one year in all respect with regard to said mobile set on behalf of OP No.2. It has been further argued that the said mobile started giving problem of automatically switched off and Op No.1 sent the mobile to service centre of Nokia Care and they removed the defect and thereafter the phone again started giving problem of switching off and was not working properly as while making call the said mobile automatically switched off at its own. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that these defects were brought into the notice of service centre, who checked and got repaired but the said defect could not be removed. Lastly prayed that as the defect in mobile in question is a manufacturing defect and the same could not be removed. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

7.                     The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant have no weightage as the complainant failed to file any job sheet issued by the OPs No.1 & 2 or from any other expert that the mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect. The only plea of the complainant is that mobile remains switched off and complainant visited 2-3 times to the office of OP No.1 but no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove his contention. The complainant has no where mentioned in his complaint that OPs have not issued any job card despite his request. Merely from filing of purchase bill and photo copy of warranty period of mobile, it cannot be presumed that mobile set was having any manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence that he has availed any service from the OP No.1 and 2.

8                      In view of the above noted circumstances we are of the considered view that in the absence of any documentary proof, we are unable to hold that the mobile set was defective from the very beginning and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open court.26.8.2015.

           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.