| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.303 of 14.12.2015 Decided on: 13.9.2017 Vikas Jain aged 38 years son of Sh.Prem Jain resident of Plot No.122, Sector 23-A, behind Cheema Petrol Pump, Mandigobindgarh, District Fatehgarhsahib. …………...Complainant Versus - E.M.M. Electricals, 1998, Near Ravindra Garments, MLA Road, Rajpura Town, District Patiala through its Authorized Dealer/Proprietor.
- M/s Sagturu Telecom, Shop No.3, Multani Market, Bharat Colony, Near New Bus Stand, Rajpura, Punjab.
- Micromax Informative Limited, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon(Haryana) through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Bimal Kumar,Adv.counsel for complainant. Opposite parties No.1&2 ex-parte. Sh.Vipan Sharma,adv.counsel for opposite party No.3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax A-120, bearing IMEI No.911367105039946 from Op no.1 for a sum of Rs.9400/- on 5.8.2014. It is averred that after a period of 10 months of the said purchase, some problem cropped up in the mobile phone and the complainant got the same deposited with Op no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 15.7.2015.OP no.2 told the complainant to come after 15 days as there was problem in the mother board of the mobile phone. After 15 days, the complainant contacted OP no.2 who told the complainant to contact the customer care and the customer care told the complainant to wait for another 15 days. The complainant contacted OP no.2 several times but Op no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. Ultimately on 14.11.2015, i.e. after a period of 4 months OP no.2 made a telephonical call to the complainant and told him to collect his mobile phone. It is further averred that when the complainant got back his mobile phone, he was shocked to see that Op no.2 had given another mobile phone to the complainant with the different IMEI No.911367108559650 whereas as per the job sheet issued by Op no.2 the IMEI number of the mobile phone was 911367105039946/911367105540943. The mobile phone given to the complainant was of lower model than the mobile phone. When the complainant contacted the OPs i.e. OPs No.1&2, they expressed their inability to replace the mobile phone of the complainant. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony as we3ll as harassment at the hands of the OPs The mobile phone repaired and returned by Op no.2 was not of the complainant rather it was of another person whose images contained in IMEI number have been received by the complainant and the family images of the complainant were transferred to another mobile phone, in this way the privacy of the family of the complainant was leaked. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OPs no.1&2 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte. OP no.3 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After submitting that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1 it has denied all the allegations made in the complaint and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.9400/- on 5.8.2014.Ex.C2 is the job sheet vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 15.7.2015. Ex.C3 is the e-mail sent by the complainant to OP and Ex.C4 is the reply of the OP wherein the OP told the complainant to contact its service centre and for more information the complainant could visit the website of the OP. Further the complainant could also contact the help line number of the OP. After receiving the reply, the complainant neither contacted the service centre nor visited the website of the OP.The complainant also did not contact the helpline number of the OP. The complainant has failed to place on record any evidence which may show that the OP returned the mobile phone of a lower model to the complainant. Moreover, he failed to produce the mobile phone in the court to show that the OP returned the mobile phone of a different IMEI number which was of a lower model than the mobile phone in question. In the absence of any corroborative evidence on record, the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in service in any respect.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 13.9.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
