Haryana

Ambala

CC/401/2012

NAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CELL GURU - Opp.Party(s)

C.M RANA

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :   AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         401 OF 2012

                             Date of Institution                :         27-12-2012

                             Date of Decision                  :         08.12.2015

 

Naveen Kumar son of Sh. Harbilas Verma, resident of Village Toda, Tehsil Raipur Rani, District Panchkula.

                                                            :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                 Versus

1.                   Cell Guru INC, Shop No. 5438, Cross Road No.4, Opposite Nigar Cinema, Ambala Cantt through its Authorized Signatory.

2.             Bright Point India Private Ltd; B-92, 9^th Floor Himalaya House, 23- KG Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its MD/ Authorized Signatory.

3.                    Nanak Telecom,74-75, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                                                                        :::::::Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Sh.C.M.Rana,Adv.counsel for complainant

                             OPs ex-parte.                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased HTC Wild fire 3  Mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 358225045301018  vide Invoice No.101 dated 22/10/2011 in a sum of Rs.13,700/- from OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of OP No.2 with a warranty of 1 year. After 4-5 days, the said mobile phone started giving problem of proper functioning as there was some noise in the set, not properly hearing , hanging problems etc. so, the complainant reported the matter to OP No.1 who  stated that these are minor problems and will be removed automatically within 15 days on functioning of the said mobile set. Thereafter the complainant requested OP No.1 to replace the mobile set with new one or get it fully repaired, but he lingered on the matter  on one pretext or the other and did not paid any heed to the requests of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant served legal notice upon OP no.1 to do the needful  but the OP No.1 intentionally did not receive the legal notice. So, the mobile in question supplied by the OP was having manufacturing defect  from the beginning to which the Ops failed to replace  with a new one within the warranty period which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Notice of complaint served upon all the OPs wherein counsel for OP No.1 has put in appearance through counsel and after availing various opportunities OP no.1 failed to file reply rather did not bother to appear and as such he was proceeded against ex-parte on 17-10-2013  whereas  the remaining OPs  i.e. OP No. 2 & 3 failed  to  appear before the forum despite service  and as such  they  were  also proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 18-2-2013 & 10-6-2013 respectively. 
3.           In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 to prove his version which are detailed as under;

1. C- 1 Sealed Regd. Letter qua refusal to legal notice by OP No.1.
2. C-2 Photo copy of Bill No. 101 dated 22/10/2011
3. C- 3 & C-4  specifications of Mobile set in question.

4.                From perusal of above referred documents, it is nowhere proved that the Mobile set in question was having any problem or defects as alleged in the complaint since no any job sheet or even affidavit of Mobile Mechanic or Engineer has been placed on file by the complainant wherefrom it is established that the mobile set in question was having any inherent or manufacturing defect. So, in these circumstances, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. As such, the complaint in hand is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 08.12.2015                                                Sd/-

                                                                              ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                 Sd/-

                                      ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                              MEMBER