O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a HTC Mobile Model DESIRE 816 manufactured by OP-2 vide Retail Invoice NO.34646 dated 3.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- from OP-1. It is further alleged that as the mobile handset started malfunctioning, the same was given for repairs to the OP-3 on 7.10.2014. It is further alleged in the complaint that despite number of visits to the OP-3 the mobile handset was not repaired due to which he has suffered in business of under garments as the complainant could not communicate with anyone. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and has prayed for either refund of the cost of mobile or replacement of mobile handset. The complainant has also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- for mental agony and pain. In addition a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been claimed as litigation cost.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to all the OPs, they filed their written statement. OP-1 in its written statement has pleaded that he is simply a shopkeeper and the mobile handset was sold in seal packed box. It has no liability from the manufacturing defect if any. OP-2&3 in its unsigned replies has pleaded that the mobile handset could not be repaired due to non-availability of parts and therefore, a replacement device of the same make was handed over to the complainant on 25.11.2014. This fact was also confirmed by the complainant. During the proceedings on 19.2.2016, the complainant admitted that a new mobile handset was replaced by OP-2&3 and he is pressing for compensation and litigation cost only.
3. The present complaint was filed on 18.11.2014 and Notice for 10.12.2014 was issued to the OPs. From the unsigned reply filed by OP-2&3 and the admission made on 19.2.2016 by the complainant, the said mobile handset was replaced with a new one on 25.11.2014 i.e. well before the date of first hearing fixed for appearance of OPs. Since then the complainant had continued the matter for more than 13 hearings without disclosing that a new mobile handset has been received by him. The continued unnecessarily litigation resulted in wastage of judicial time of the Forum. It is settled legal proposition that equity begets equity. Its only the greed of the complainant that this matter continued for such a long period. Hence, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the complainant does not deserve any compensation or litigation cost. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 29th day of February, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
