BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 16 of 2015
Date of Institution : 28.1.2014
Date of Decision : 20.5.2016
Naresh Sharma son of Sh.Madan Lal Sharma, r/o Sikligar Gurudwara, J.J.Colony, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Wadhwa Mobile Care, near Jaipur Hospital, Circular road, Sirsa-125055(Mob.No.08960-11816, 94666-70111).
2. M/s Chugh Telecom, B-1, B-2, B-3, New M.C.Market, Sirsa (Mob.No.98121-21203, 01666-223806).
3. Head Office Spice Mobiles, 19-A and 19-B, Sector 125 Noida (U.)).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.
Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 15.10.2013, the complainant purchased a new mobile handset Spice-M5406 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.1850/- vide bill no.37189 with warranty of one year in case of any default in the mobile set. On 18.10.2013, a problem occurred in display and netwrok of the mobile set. He approached to Op no.2, who kept the mobile set with him for repair and returned it on 24.1.2014. But on 25.1.2014, the mobile set again become out of order. He visited Ops, but they did not pay any heed. Hence, the present complaint for replacement of the mobile set or in alternative, for return of its price, with upto date interest besides claiming damages for harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of ops no.1 and 2 and thus, they were proceeded exparte vide order dt. 9.6.2014.
3. Only opposite party no.3 contested the case by filing reply. It is pleaded that answering respondent possess a goodwill and have an established market and assumed a good reputation over a years in respect of the business, which they carry out. The allegations made against them are vague and general in nature. The complainant has neither attached even a single job sheet nor IMEI Number pertaining to said mobile phone. In the absence of requisite information, they are unable to provide any update on the matter. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit and Ex.C2-cash memo.
5. To the contrary, no evidence has been placed on record by op no.3 despite several adjournments.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove or to presume any manufacturing defect in the mobile set, purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1. In this regard, only his own affidavit is not, at all, sufficient to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set. To prove manufacturing defect, the complainant could have got the mobile set examined from some expert. But, he has not done so. Not only this, not even a single time, the mobile set was got examined/repaired from any mechanic or from any service centre. The mobile set is admittedly in possession of the complainant, meaning thereby, that the complainant has been continuously using it. It is upon the complainant to prove that the mobile set has manufacturing defect, but the complainant failed to place on record any job sheet etc. to prove that he had brought the mobile set to the service centre i.e. op no.2 for repair.
8. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
D.C.D.R.F.,
Sirsa.
