View 9723 Cases Against Mobile
Deepak S/o Suresh Sharma filed a consumer case on 08 Mar 2017 against Jimmy Chhabra Mobile in the Yamunanagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/13/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Mar 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR
Complaint No. 13 of 2015.
Date of institution: 06.01.2015
Date of decision: 08.03.2017
Deepak son of Shri Suresh Sharma, resident of House No.145/4, Bhagirath Colony, Jagadhri, Tehsil and District Yamuna Nagar.
…Complainant.
Versus
…Respondents.
BEFORE: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.
SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.
Present: None for complainant
Sh. Pankaj Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.
OP No.2 already ex parte vide order dated 13.03.2015
Complaint qua the OP No.3 already dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2017
ORDER
1 The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one Sansui SA43G Mobile from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- vide bill No.1003 dated 18.01.2014. At the time of purchasing the said mobile hand set, the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the said mobile is of international quality and if there will be any defect then the OP No.1 will refund the mobile price or replace with new one. Since from the very beginning, the said did not work properly, because there was a hanging problem and some other problems, upon which the complainant reported the matter to the OP No.1 who asked the complainant to check the mobile from the authorized service station i.e. OP No.2 but they told to the complainant that mobile in question was not of the company as IMEI No. is not matched with their record and refused to remove the defects from the mobile in question. Hence, there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and prayed for directing the OPs to refund to Rs.4500/- along with interest and also to pay compensation.
3. Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence is hereby closed by court order today. However, at the time of filing of complaint, the complainant tendered his short affidavit alongwith photocopy of bill No.1003 dated 18.01.2014 in support of his case.
4. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by mentioning there in that OP No.1 is only distributor of Sansui Company and it was the duty of the company to provide service to its customer and further more it was the manufacturing company who was liable for any kind of manufacturing defect. It has been further mentioned that complainant never reported with the OP No.1 about the defect in the mobile in question as alleged in the complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.
5. OP No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.03.2015 whereas complaint qua OP No.3 has already been dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2017.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.1 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.
7. After going through the contents of the complaint and documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the complainant has totally failed to place on file any mechanic or expert report to prove the mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect as no job sheet has been placed on file. Furthermore, as per version of the complainant, he purchased the mobile in question on 18.01.2014 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 06.01.2015 meaning thereby that after a period of one year. Complainant has further mentioned that mobile in question was having a hanging problem and some other problems but has not disclosed the particulars of some other problems. The hanging problem may be due to heavy data which cannot be treated as manufacturing defect.
8. Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. Further, no cogent evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the mobile in question, hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court: 08.03.2017.
(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)
PRESIDENT
DCDRF Yamuna Nagar
(S.C.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.