Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/458

Shubhjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Inter Technologies Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 458 of 03.08.2015

Date of Decision            :   01.04.2016      

 

Shubhjeet Singh aged 19 years s/o Manjeet Singh r/o 538, Street No.1, Harchran Nagar, Near Shinghar Cinema, Ludhiana, Punjab.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Intex Technologies Limited, D-18/2,  Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, through its authorized signatory.

2.U.P.Telecom, Opp. Street No.10, Janakpuri, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

 

…Opposite parties

 

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Shubhjeet Singh against Ops by claiming that he purchased mobile of make GSM Cloud Y4 Dual Sim 91134260040739 from Om Telecom wz-432, Madipurr Village, New Delhi for Rs.5190/- vide invoice S-MAIN-55638 dated 18.3.2014 through internet/ online shopping. That set carried warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase. During period of warranty, the said set developed various defects like that of non- charging of battery, switch off mobile, starting problem, signal lost, non connectivity of internet and low voice etc. That fact was brought to the notice of OP and the set was repaired on various times, but defects remained un-removed. Complainant in ignorance could not keep the copy of job sheets with him. On 29.6.2015, after prescribed warranty period, complainant visited OP2, being the authorized service and repair centre of OP1 for lodging complaint of low voice and of mobile going switched off etc. Op claimed charges of Rs.1600/- for       changing mother board by claiming that the same was defective. Rs.1600/- were paid on 29.6.2015 vide Challan No.5389. Op2 advised the complainant to visit after 20/25 days to receive the mobile set back in working condition, but the said mobile set was returned on 28.7.2015. At that time, mobile set was found dead. OP disclosed that the battery of the mobile set has gone dead and requires replacement. Rs.500/- was claimed as charges, which were paid through Challan No.2277 dated 28.7.2015. That mobile set was delivered to the complainant by OPs after fixing new battery with advice to the complainant to get the battery fully recharged. Even after change of the battery, the mobile set was found defective because problems of low voice, switching on/off of mobile still persisted. Mother board was found to be second hand. The same was of make Intex Cloud Y-4 plus, but in fact the used mother board relates to Intex Cloud Y-4. The mother board installed by OPs did show whats app pictures, chat backup data of previous date of 31.12.2014,       which is alleged to be proof, as if instead of fixing new mother board against charging of Rs.1600/-, OPs installed used mother board of other model. So, unfair trade practice alleged to be adopted by OPs. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice sought. Even refund of Rs.2100/- along with costs of Rs.5190/-, the price of mobile set claimed with interest @12% p.a. Litigation expenses of Rs.3500/- even claimed.

2.                Ops are ex-parte in this case, though earlier Sh.Manmeet Singh, Manager for OP1 and Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for OP2 appeared.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. CA1 along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C9 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                Oral arguments of counsel for the complainant heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Ex.C1  is  copy  of  warranty  card  and  Ex.C2 contains the terms     of warranty. As per Ex.C2, Intex Mobile phone carries12 months warranty from the date of purchase or 15 months from manufacturing date of corresponding MEI No. of the unit, whichever earlier. Copy of invoice Ex.C3 produced to show that mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant through online shopping on 18.3.2014 for consideration of Rs.5190/-. So by keeping in view  terms of Ex.C2, warranty expired on 17.3.2015. In view of expiry of warranty period, the complainant bound to pay for the further rendered services by the OPs. Services of repair got by the complainant on 29.6.2015 on payment of Rs.1600/- and again on 28.7.2015 for the replacement of battery etc. So these services availed by the complainant after expiry of warranty period.

6.                Bills Ex.C4 of date 28.7.2015 and Ex.C5 of 29.6.2015 are produced on record to show that Rs.500/- were charged from the complainant for replacement of battery on 28.7.2015, but Rs.1600/- were charged for inserting H/set Cloud Y4. No expert report has been produced to show that Whats app prints Ex.C6 to EX.C9 reflects as if used mother board was inserted at the time of repair. Bare assertions of the complainant in the absence of any material or expert report will not be enough to establish that the second hand mother board was inserted at the time of repair. So, evidence in that respect is lacking to establish that actually the second hand mother board was inserted while repairing the mother board after the warranty period. Moreover, bills Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 did not show that any warranty for replaced battery or mother board was provided by the OPs and as such, in case  such warranty not provided, then OPs are not bound to repair further the mobile in question without charging nothing. On what basis, complainant claiming replaced mother board to be second hand one, qua that neither any explanation offered in course of arguments nor any material produced and as such, bare assertion of complainant not enough to prove that second hand mother board was used at the time of repair after warranty period.

7.                In case of Harbhajan Singh vs.Jhandu Kay Coop.Agri.Service Society Limited and others-2015(IV)CLT-72(N.C.)., it has been observed that onus of proving that a product of seed was of inferior quality was on the petitioner and in case, he fails to submit the report of expert from the Agriculture Department in order to prove his allegations, then dismissal of complaint is quite appropriate. In this case before us also report of expert not procured or tendered for substantiating the charges of inserting second hand mother board and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

8.                In case of Samuel Enterprises vs.Vanlazella-2015(I)CLT-181(MZ), it has been held that order of District Forum for allowing the complaint is unsustainable, when the judgment is passed just on the basis of purchased receipt of the alleged defective mobile because defect has to be proved and likewise deficiency in pleaded service has to be proved. That deficiency in service not proved and as such just production on record, the purchased receipt, will not be enough to allow the complaint.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint ex-parte dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.04.2016

Gobind Sharma.