| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/211 of 24.9.2015 Decided on: 14.12.2015 Rajdeep Singh, aged about 28 years,s/o S.Ranjit Singh, village Birdwal, PO Agoul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Harjeet Bros, Nokia Piority Dealer, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala, through its Proprietor. 2. Ganesh Electricals, 37/C, Mansahia Colony, 21 No.Phatak, Patiala 147001 (Punjab). 3. Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi 110028. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Amar Singh , Advocate For Ops No.2&3: Ex-parte ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased one mobile hand set make Micromax A350 Knight from Op no.1 for Rs.14600/- vide invoice No.3773 dated 16.10.2014.After a gap of three months from the purchase, the mobile hand set had become defective , which was got repaired twice on different dates from Op no.2. Again the mobile hand set was handed over to Op no.2 for rectifying the defect on 24.8.2015 but the same could not be repaired by the Op till the date of the filing of the complaint despite the fact that the complainant approached Op no.2 and who deferred the matter on flimsy ground and could not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant also registered the complaints on 10.8.2015 vide No.MMX100915962224 and on 30.8.2015 vide No.MMX310815856520 with the customer care but to no effect. From the date of the purchase, the mobile hand set has remained with the service centre of Op no.2, going to show that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. Consequently the complainant has approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to replace his mobile hand set or to refund the price thereof; to pay him the compensation as also the costs of the complaint.
- The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.2&3 but who despite service failed to come present and were proceeded against exparte.
- In the exparte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and his counsel closed the evidence. The complainant failed to file the written arguments.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C3 is the job sheet dated 24.8.2015 issued by Op no.2 in favour of the complainant, in respect of the mobile hand set bearing IMEI/ESN No.911357701799613/911357701952618 about the problems: “4911 display touch screen not working ;5302 charging/battery low battery capacity/battery DR 5303 charging/battery/ battery over heating”. During the course of the evidence, the complainant in his sworn affidavit Ex.CA, tendered on 1.12.2015 disclosed that the set was returned after 48 days from the receipt by Op no.2. The set did not start and function properly and therefore, the same was again handed over to Op no.2 for rectification of the fault. The set was again returned by the Op to the complainant on the same day after doing the needful stating that in case the set was again returned, the extra charges would be taken. The set was not functioning properly.
- We are really surprised to see the conduct of the complainant in as much as he got the mobile hand set back from op no.2, which was handed over by him to Op no.2 for rectification of the aforesaid defects vide job sheet Ex.C3 dated 24.8.2015 without expressing any note of satisfaction and he further handed over the mobile hand set to Op no.2 without getting any job sheet and got the same back on the same day.
- From the deposition made by the complainant in his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA, it would appear that he got the mobile hand set back after a gap of 48 days i.e. on or about 12th of October,2015 but the complainant failed to bring the said fact to our notice on 4.11.2015, the date fixed for the appearance of the Ops for the first time. He further failed to bring the said fact to our notice on the next date of appearance i.e. 13.11.2015.Had the complainant not been satisfied with the rectification of the mobile hand set, he would not have sit idle by keeping the mobile hand set with him and he would have certainly brought the said fact to our notice either on 4.11.2015 or on the next date i.e. on 13.11.2015. It is no where stated by the complainant in his sown affidavit that he had not expressed his satisfaction regarding the repair of the mobile hand set on the job sheet dated 24.8.2015.
- It is important to note that till date the complainant has not produced the mobile hand set before us with any complaint whatsoever in its working.
- The complainant was not supposed to get the mobile hand set back during the pendency of the complaint and in case he got it back and in case he was not satisfied about the functioning of the same, he should have brought the said fact to our notice by moving an application in this regard so that an appropriate action could be taken by us. The very fact that the complainant has not, so far, produced the mobile hand set before the Forum highlighting any defect, whatever in the functioning of the same would go to show that he is very much satisfied with the working of the mobile hand set. It is quite possible that the complainant had got the mobile hand set back from the Op even before the date of the filing of the complaint, which was filed on 24.9.2015 i.e. one month after the submissions of the mobile hand set by him with Op no.2 vide job sheet dated 24.8.2015, Ex.C3 because no documentary evidence is lead by the complainant including the very job sheet on the basis of which the mobile hand set was returned to him showing the dae and the month when the same was returned to him as also about the condition of the same. Byvirture of his act and conduct, the complainant has lost his remedy either regarding the replacement of the mobile hand set or the refund of the price thereof and rather the complaint appears to be based on false allegations and therefore the same is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced Dated: 14.12.2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
