Punjab

Sangrur

CC/861/2015

Lakham Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Binny Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sinku Kumar

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                            

                                                Complaint No.  861

                                                Instituted on:    18.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       08.03.2016

 

Lakhan Kumar son of Ram Lal, Resident of Ram Nagar Basti, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                                                                 …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Binny Telecom, Opposite Main Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur, authorised service centre of Lava Mobile, through its Proprietor/partner.

2.             Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector 64, Noida (UP) 201 301 through its Managing Director.

3.             Gupta Radio Service, Outside Sunami Gate, Roxy Road, Sangrur, authorised dealer of Lava Mobile through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                                                                 …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Mahesh Satija, Adv.

For OPs No.2 & 3     :               Shri Rajat Bansal, Adv.

For OP No.1.            :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Lakhan Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Lava mobile set dual sim bearing IMEI umber 1-911402200788962 and no.2 -911402200788970 for Rs.6500/- from OP number 3 vide invoice number 1338 dated 28.4.2015, which was having one year warranty.  Further case of the complainant is that on 9.7.2015, the complainant was shocked to see that touch pad and front cover of the mobile become black, as such, he immediately approached OP number 3, who advised the complainant to approach the service centre of OP i.e. OP number 1. The complainant approached OP number 1, who after checking told the complainant that the touch pad of the mobile set has damaged and LCD TP front cover of the mobile had black, thereafter on 18.7.2015 the OP sent a message to collect the mobile set after repairs.  It is further averred that in the month of August, 2015 the above said mobile gave the same problem, as such, the complainant approached OP number 1, who after checking told the complainant to pay Rs.3000/- for the installation of touch pad and mother board etc. As such, he complainant requested the Op number 2 to set it right free of charge as the mobile set is within the warranty period, but he did not accept the genuine request fo the complainant. Thereafter,   the complainant also got checked the mobile set from the expert on 10.8.2015, who stated that the mobiles is suffering from manufacturing defects.  As such, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 19.10.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the present complaint filed by the complainant is without any technical report and that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased the mobile set on 28.4.2015 as there is clear alteration in the date on the bill or in invoice number 1338.  Further it is stated that actually there was no problem in the mobile as prescribed by the complainant in the complaint and the complainant never approached OP number 1.  It is further denied that the OP number 1 ever demanded Rs.3000/- from the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of SMS dated 9.7.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of invoice dated 28.4.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of expert report dated 10.8.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of SMS dated 18.7.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and 3 have produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-3 is a copy of the bill dated 28.04.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.6500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3. But, in the present case, the main grievance of the complainant is that though he approached OP number 1 a number of times for repairs of the mobile set in question, but the same was not repaired and made it in working order.  As such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that necessary directions be given to OPs either to refund the cost/amount of the mobile set or to replace it with a new one. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 has contended vehemently that the mobile set in question was never brought to the Ops for repairs or he ever approached the OP number 1 for getting the mobile set repaired.   The complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence i.e. job order sheet to show that he ever handed over the mobile set to the OP number 1 for repairs.  Mere production of Ex.C-5 alleged to be the printed mobile message dated 09.07.2015 to show that the mobile is repaired under warranty is not sufficient as it nowhere shows the date or that this message contains the name by whom it was sent and to whom the same was sent.  Further the complainant has produced the report dated 10.8.2015 by one Kamalpreet Singh and after its perusal, we feel that this is not helpful to the case of the complainant as it is neither supported by any affidavit of Shri Kamapreet Singh nor it is mentioned and proved that what is the technical qualification of Kamalpreet Singh. As such, we feel that this report is not helpful to the case of the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.  In the circumstances of the case, we find no case made out against the OPs for any deficiency in service.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 8, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member