Karnail Singh filed a consumer case on 21 Jul 2016 against Managing Director/Authorised Signatory in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/251/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Jul 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 251
Instituted on: 04.02.2016
Decided on: 21.07.2016
Karnail Singh son of Bhajan Singh resident of village Lakhewal, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Ritesh Jindal, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Exparte.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
K.C.Sharma, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Karnail Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Intex Mobile bearing model number Cloud- N12+ colour white for Rs.5000/- vide invoice number 483 dated 13/08/2015 from OP No.3 under guarantee/ warranty one year. After one month, the said mobile set had become out of order due to defect in its flash for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who kept the said set with it saying that it will be sent to the OP No.2 and issued job sheet number 510246042002T001. On 30.10.2015 the OP no.2 returned the set with assurance that all the defects in the mobile set have been removed. Thereafter, the complainant found the functions of the mobile set has been decreasing and previous problems started. The complainant requested the OPs to replace/ repair the same and OPs told the complainant that the said mobile set will not give the problem in future but inspite of this the mobile set again started giving problem. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the defected mobile set with new one or to refund the purchase amount i.e. Rs.5000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs number 1&2 but despite service OPs no. 1&2 did not appear and as such OP no.1&2 were proceeded exparte.
3. OP no.3 has appeared through Shri Pardeep Kumar on 28.03.2016 and filed reply wherein it has been stated that mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant from it. However, the warranty is to be honoured by the company itself. Thereafter on 08.07.2016 none has appeared for the OP No.3 and OP No.3 was also proceeded exparte.
4. In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant had purchased Intex Mobile bearing model number Cloud- N12+ colour white for Rs.5000/- from OP No.3 vide invoice number 483 dated 13/08/2015 under guarantee/ warranty one year which is Ex.C-3 on record. The complainant's specific case is that after one month, the said mobile set had become out of order due to defect in its flash for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who kept the said set with it saying that it will be sent to the OP No.2 and issued job sheet number 510246042002T001 but the defects could not be rectified and ultimately OPs No.2&3 refused to repair or replace the mobile set in question. The complainant has also produced report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh proprietor of Singh Connectivity, Phirni road, Sangrur along with his affidavit which are Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-1 respectively wherein it has been stated that after thorough checking he found that there is manufacturing defect in the mother board of the set and due to that reason the mobile was giving problems of flash and in its functioning. But, from the perusal of entire record on the file we find that the complainant has not produced any job sheet as stated in the complaint which could show that the complainant has approached the OPs with the complaint of flash/defect in the mobile set. Moreover, expert has only stated there is manufacturing defect in the mother board of the set and due to that reason the mobile was giving problem of flash but he has not stated that the defects of the mother board and flash cannot be rectified by repair. Moreover, he has not explained the manufacturing defect in details. The complainant has not produced any certificate of the expert regarding his qualification/ experience on record.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect/ defect in the mobile set in question for which he approached the OPs and OPs had not redressed his grievance. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 21, 2016
( Sarita Garg) ( K.C.Sharma) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
BBS/-
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.