Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/227/2020

Pawan Kumar S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gaba Computer - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh Karanwal

24 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

        Complaint No.227 of 2020

        Date of instt. 20.07.2018

        Date of Decision:24.03.2021

 

Pawan Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of house no.1944/4, Ward no.20, near Tula Ram Market, Krishna Nagar, Gomri  Thanesar District  Kurukshetra.                            

                                                                      ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Gaba Computer, Mohan Nagar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Mob No. 93502-09204).

                        .……Opposite party.

 

                        Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection

                        Act.

 

Before                Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

Smt. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:     Shri Yogesh Karanwal, Advocate for complainant.

                Opposite ex-parte.

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Pawan Kumar against Gaba Computer- the opposite party.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that complainant purchased a second hand mobile phone Marka Samsung Galaxy J-4,IMEI No.358129096998153 from OP through their employee Mohit Sharma on 13.6.2020. The phone was in good condition and the phone was in working condition and the OP assured that every part  of the phone was original. The complainant paid Rs.3000/- as cost of the phone in the presence of their friend Gulshan.  The OP denied to give the bill and gave a handmade receipt of the same. After few days, touch of the mobile phone is up. The complainant was surprised to see the condition of the phone and he met the OP and requested to repair or replace the phone but every time OP denied.  The complainant visited the Samsung Service Center, where Samsung Service Engineer told the complainant that touch or display of the phone is not original and the phone is not new one.  The complainant  got served legal notice  dated 30.06.2020 upon the OP requesting to  but the OP did not accede to the request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and requested that the OP be directed to pay compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but OP failed to appear and contest the present complaint. Therefore, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 9.9.2020.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit  Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             The Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that he purchased a second half mobile phone Marka Samsung No.358129096998153 from OP through their employee Mohit Sharma on 13.6.2020 and paid the sum of Rs.3000/- in the presence of their friend Gulshan. After a few days the touch of the phone was up and  the phone is not working properly. He requested the OP to get it repaired or to return Rs.3000/- but he failed to do so even despite service of legal notice, which amounts to deficiency in services.

 

6.             As per own version of the complainant, he had purchased an old mobile handset from the OP. No documentary evidence has been placed on record that the OP had given any warranty for the mobile phone showing that it shall be repaired or replaced in case of any defect in the mobile handset. Oral version of the complainant cannot be relied upon. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the mobile phone was purchased in the presence of one Gulshan. He has also failed to place on record affidavit of said Gulshan  to prove his case. The onus was on the complainant to prove that any warranty was given by OP for the said mobile phone but he has failed to do so. In such circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.

 

7.             In view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we.  Dismiss the present complaint without any relief to the complainant. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:24.03.2021.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.