BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Jasreman Ghuman through its SPA Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, Maternal Aunt, Resident of House No.200, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  DELL Authorised Service Centre, SCO No.477-478, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorised 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.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL           MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:    Ms.Baljeet K. Bhullar, Counsel for complainant. 

OPs NO.1 & 2 exparte.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP-3.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         In short, the complainant purchased one mobile handset of Dell Aero from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.11,800/- vide Invoice dated 17.8.2011 (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the complainant could not enjoy the mobile more than three months as it started giving problems.  The touch pad of the mobile handset was not working properly, as such the complainant could not use it.  Resultantly, the complainant approached OP NO.1 being authorized service centre at Chandigarh, on 14.1.2012 for repairing the mobile handset, who in turn issued Receipt Ann.C-2.  Thereafter, the complainant was given replaced handset on 23.3.2012, but since it was also not working properly, it was returned to OP-1 on the same day i.e. 23.3.2012. It is submitted that the OP No.1 had assured the complainant that they will inform the complainant when new set will arrive, but till date no intimation has been received from OP-1 for the change of new mobile handset.  It is also submitted that the OPs had neither gave the new handset to the complainant nor refunded its price, as such the complainant had to suffer a lot.  Hence, this complaint.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service, hence they were proceeded exparte. 

         OP No.3 filed reply stating therein that the complainant visited their service centre on 14.1.2012 with having touch issue in the phone.  It is submitted that the OP NO.1 honouring the terms & conditions of the warranty policy, informed the complainant that the said handset will be replaced with new one.  As such, the replacement unit was arranged on 23.3.2012, having IMEI No.354773040004578.  It is further submitted that the Engineer of OP-1 had checked the handset before replacing the same as per the update and complainant had also checked the handset with complete satisfaction and accepted the new handset.  It is vehemently denied that after replacement, the new handset was not working properly and OP-2 had taken back the handset for replacement. It is also denied that OP-1 assured the complainant that they will informed the complainant when new handset will arrive, but till date no intimation has been received.  It is asserted that after received the replacement of the handset, the complainant had never visited the service centre for any issue.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP-3 and have also perused the record.

5]       Admittedly, the complainant purchased one mobile handset of Dell Aero, which was later on deposited with OP-1 (Service Centre) for repair on account of some problem in its touch pad.  It is also an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was given replaced handset on 23.3.2012 having IMEI No.354773040004578 vide Ann.C-3.

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that even the replaced mobile handset was not working properly, so the same was returned to OP-1 on the same very day i.e. 23.2012, whereas, this fact has been denied by the OP No.3.

7]      Now the question which needs to be determined is that as to whether the complainant had also returned the replaced mobile handset on 23.3.2012, as alleged.

8]       The onus to prove this fact squarely lies on the complainant. But the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record by way of leading any cogent & documentary proof that she has ever returned the replaced mobile handset to the Opposite Party, as alleged, on that very day i.e. 23.3.2012.  Mere bald assertion of the complainant, in this regard, in absence of any substantial & authentic document/proof, is not sufficient to prove her case.

9]       Moreover, it is not expected from any prudent man that he/she will return/deposit some article with any Agency/Shop/Service Centre, without having any receipt for the same. The complainant should have taken a receipt while returning the replaced mobile handset to the OP No.1. The complainant has failed to place on record any such document to prove her case, so it cannot be said that she had actually returned the replaced mobile handset to the OP-1. Moreover, this fact has also been rebutted & controverted by OP No.3.  Therefore, no deficiency is attributable towards either of the OPs.  

10]      Henceforth, judged from every angle and in view of the foregoings, we have no hesitation to conclude that the complainant has not been able to prove her case of alleged deficiency on the part of OPs.  Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.