STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 409 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 10.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 08.02.2013 |
Jasreman Ghuman through its SPA Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, Maternal Aunt, Resident of House No.200, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/complainant
V e r s u s
1] DELL Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.477-478, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Person/Representative.
2] R.K. Mobile World, SCO No.461-62, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.
3] DELL Exclusive Store, Regional Office, SCO No.47, Ground Floor, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. (deleted vide order dated 23.01.2013)
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Smt. Anita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondents no. 1 and 2 exparte.
Name of respondent no.3, struck off, vide order dated 23.01.2013
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Dell Aero, from Opposite Party No.2, for a sum of Rs.11,800/-, vide retail invoice dated 17.8.2011 (infact 16.08.2011) (Annexure C-1). It was stated that after about three months, of the purchase of the said mobile handset, it started giving problems. The touch pad of the mobile handset was not working properly, as a result whereof, the complainant could not use the same. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, being the authorized Service Centre, at Chandigarh, on 14.01.2012, to get the said mobile handset repaired, which, in turn, issued receipt Annexure C-2. Thereafter, the complainant was given a replaced new handset, on 23.03.2012. Since, the replaced new mobile handset was also not working properly, it was returned to the representative of Opposite Party No.1, on the same day. It was stated that the representative of Opposite Party No.1, had assured the complainant, that it would inform her, on the arrival of the new mobile handset, but no intimation, with regard to the same, was ever sent to her. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, neither gave the new handset, to the complainant, nor refunded the price thereof. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to replace the defective mobile handset, with a new one, or in the alternative refund the price thereof, alongwith interest; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss and wastage of time; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that the complainant visited its Service Centre, on 14.01.2012, with regard to the complaint, that the touch pad of the said mobile handset was not working. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, honoured the terms and conditions of the warranty Policy, and informed the complainant, that the said mobile handset would be replaced, with a new one. It was further stated that, accordingly, the new mobile handset was arranged and delivered to the complainant, on 23.03.2012, bearing IMEI No.354773040004578. It was further stated that the Engineer of Opposite Party No.1, had checked the said mobile handset, before replacement of the same, as per the update. The complainant also checked the new mobile handset, with complete satisfaction and accepted the same. It was denied that the new mobile handset was not working properly. It was also denied that the representative of Opposite Party No.1, took back the new handset for replacement, and that it (Opposite Party No.1), assured the complainant that it would inform her, when new handset would arrive. It was further stated that after receipt of the replaced new handset, the complainant never visited the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The complainant and Opposite Party No.3, led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No.3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the new mobile handset, by way of replacement, which was handed over to the complainant, in lieu of the old mobile handset, was working properly. It was held by the District Forum, that the new replaced mobile handset, which was received by the complainant, was never returned by her, to the Opposite Parties. It was further held that, as such, the Opposites Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
7. Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9. Respondent no.1 was duly served, whereas, respondent no.2, refused to accept the service, but no authorized representative, on their behalf, put in appearance, on 23.01.2013, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte.
10. On 23.01.2013, the Counsel for the appellant, made a statement that she did not claim any relief, against respondent no.3, and its name be stuck off. Accordingly, the name of respondent no.3 was stuck off, from array of the Parties.
11. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
12. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Dell Aero, from Opposite Party No.2, for a sum of Rs.11,800/-, vide retail invoice dated 16.08.2011 Annexure C-1. She further submitted that, after about three months of the purchase of the said handset, it started giving problems. She further submitted that the touch pad of the mobile handset, was not working properly, as a result whereof, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 (authorized Service Centre), on 14.01.2012, to get the same repaired. She further submitted that the representative of Opposite Party No.1, issued receipt Annexure C-2, and, thereafter, the complainant was given the replaced handset, on 23.03.2012, but it was also not working properly, as a result whereof, it was also returned to the representative Opposite Party No.1. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties, told the complainant, that, as soon as, a new handset, by way of replacement was received, she would be intimated. She further submitted that, neither the complainant was intimated with regard to receipt of the new handset, nor she was provided the same, nor refund of the price of the same, was made to her. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties were, thus, clearly deficient, in rendering service, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary.
13. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Dell Aero, from Opposite Party No.2, for a sum of Rs.11,800/-, vide retail invoice dated 16.08.2011 Annexure C-1. It is also established from the affidavit of Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, Maternal Aunt of the complainant, which was submitted, by way of evidence, that the touch pad of the said mobile handset was not working properly, as a result whereof, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, the authorized Service Centre of the Company, on 14.01.2012. The complainant, herself, admitted in the complaint, that on 23.03.2012, the complainant was given the replaced new mobile handset. It means, in lieu of the old mobile handset, replaced new mobile handset bearing IMEI No.354773040004578, as is proved from the evidence, on record, was handed over to the complainant. No doubt, an averment was made, by the complainant that the replaced new handset, which was handed over to her, on 23.03.2012, was also not working properly, and she returned the same, to the representative of Opposite Party No.1. However, this fact was denied, by Opposite Party No.3, in its written version. It was, for the complainant, to produce on record, the cogent documentary evidence, to prove that she actually returned the replaced new handset, to the representative of Opposite Party No.1, on 23.03.2012, as the same was not working properly. However, no cogent documentary evidence was produced by the complainant, in regard thereto. It could not be imagined that a person, who was handed over the new replaced mobile handset, on 23.03.2012, would return the same, to the representative of Opposite Party No.1, without obtaining any receipt, in that regard, knowing fully well, that there was possibility of the latter, denying the factum of receipt of the same. Vide Annexure C-3, the replaced new mobile handset bearing IMEI No.354773040004578, was handed over to the complainant. No cogent evidence to rebut Annexure C-3 was produced by the complainant.. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the replaced new mobile handset, which was received by the complainant, on 23.03.2012, bearing IMEI No.354773040004578, was never returned by her, to the Opposite Parties, and, as such, she could not claim that she be given another new mobile handset, or be refunded the price thereof. The District Forum, was, also right in holding that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
14. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
February 8, 2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
