DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  273

                                                Instituted on:    08.06.2017

                                                Decided on:       11.10.2017

Sukhpal Singh 34 years son of Kuldeep Singh, resident of BPS Nagar (Gurdaspura) Backside Golden Nursery Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Friends Mobile Zone, Opposite Surinder Di Hatti, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

2.             Network Business Group, SCO 45, Ground Floor, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its proprietor.

3.             Oplus Technology India Private Limited, B-41, First floor, Kalka Ji New Delhi through its MD/Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Adv.

For   OP No.1           :               Shri A.S.Sahota, Adv.

For   OP NO.2           :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri M.K.Verma, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Sukhpal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the service of the OP number 1 by purchasing a mobile phone Coolpad Dazen-I for Rs.6300/- vide bill dated 20.6.2016 which was having one year warranty.  Further case of the complainant is that after 3-4 months of its use, it stopped working due to manufacturing defect therein, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 1, who suggested that there is no service centre, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 at Patiala, who retained the mobile set for three months and returned thereafter.   Further case of the complainant is that the camera of the mobile set is not working, as such he again approached the OP number 1, but the OP number 1 did not give any satisfactory reply and as such the complainant has suffered in the hands of the Ops. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the mobile set in question with a new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.6300/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 20.6.2016 against the proper bill. However, it is denied that the mobile set in question developed defects after 3-4 months of its purchase or there is any manufacturing defect therein in the mobile set.  It has been further denied that the complainant ever approached the OP for any defect in the mobile set in question.   It has been further denied that there is any defect in the mobile set. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief, that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, that the complainant first time visited the office of the OP in the month of November 2016 with the problem of automatic shut down and stopped working. The OP number 3 is only a collection point of cool pad mobiles and the service centre of cool pad mobiles is in Delhi i.e. Mars Eservices, L3/L4, Delhi.  It has been stated that the mobile set is in OK condition and the complainant filed the present complaint after using the mobile for 11 months.  On merits, it has been stated that the complainant submitted the mobile set for repairs on 4.11.2016 and was undertaken for repairs. It is stated that the OP number 3 is not a service centre of OP number 3.  Lastly, it has been stated that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP because it is not liable to refund any payment for the alleged Coolpad Dazon as the same is manufactured by Coolpad Communication Private Limited, which has not been arrayed as a party, that the present complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant and  Ex.C-2  to Ex.C-6 copies of the documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/2 affidavit and courier receipt and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2 affidavits, Ex.OP3/3 copy of resolution and closed evidence.

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1 against the payment of Rs.6300/- vide bill dated 20.6.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set supplied by the OPs is defective one and is suffering from manufacturing defect and as such has sought replacement of the same with a new one.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the set is in working condition and is working properly and further it has been contended by the learned counsel for OP number 3 that the complainant has arrayed the manufacturer of the mobile set as  a party. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and found that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case as the complainant has not arrayed the manufacturer of the mobile set as a party.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not array it as a party, despite the fact that the OP number 3 took a specific objection and mentioned the name of the manufacturer as “Coolpad Communication Pvt. Ltd.”.  Further there is nothing on record to show that the mobile set in question is suffering from what manufacturing defect.  Though the complainant has produced the affidavit of one Jasvir Singh Ex.C-2 to state that the mobile set in question is suffering from manufacturing defect and due to that mobile phone is troubling with shut down and stopped working and the camera is also not in working condition due to the said defect.  But, we may mention that the said Jasvir Singh has not produced any expert report of checking to show that from what manufacturing defect the mobile set was suffering. As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in complaint or any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as such, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However,  the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 11, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member