Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/490/2014

Dharmender Kumar S/o Meghnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehndiratta Music World - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Mehta

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 490 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution:25.11.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 28.11.2016.

Dharamender Kumar aged about 38 years son of Sh. Meghnath resident of village Unheri Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1.  Mahendiratta Music World, 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. HCL Mobile, registered office at 806, Siddharth Building  96, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                       …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Gaurav Mehta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              None for respondent No.1.

              Sh. Jain Kumar, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Dharamender Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund Rs. 11500/- charged on account of cost of HCL Tablet Y3 alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one HCL Tablet Y3 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- vide bill No. 34246 dated 28.11.2013 manufactured by OP No.2. Since the very beginning the said tablet did not work properly because the said tablet  used to get automatically switch off. The matter was reported to OP No.1, on the advice of Op No.1 the complainant visited the service centre of HCL Tablet and the official of the service centre retained the tablet with them from time to time and tried to remove the defect from the tablet but the defect could not be removed as there was manufacturing defect. Ultimately, the complainant requested the OP No.1 to return the amount of tablet or replace the tablet with new one but the OP No.1 refused to do so. Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas Op No.2 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.3.2015. However, later on when the case was fixed for evidence of complainant an application for joining the proceedings was filed on 22.12.2015 which was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2016.

4.                     OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in service; OP No.1 is only retailer and after sale service in case of any defect is to be provided by the service centre; complainant has no locus standi; complainant has no cause of action and on merit, it has been admitted that OP No.1 is only the retailer and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect as well as for want of knowledge.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of bill bearing No. 34246 dated 28.11.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet/service call note as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, so, the evidence of OP No.1 was closed by court order dated 08.08.2016.

7.                     Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Prabhakar Tiwari, Legal Branch Manager HCL Mobile as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one HCL Tablet Y3 from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- vide bill No. 34246 dated 28.11.2013 manufactured by OP No.2. The only grievance of the complainant is that since the very beginning the tablet in question purchased on 28.11.2013 was not working properly because the tablet used to get automatically switched off. We have perused the job sheet/service call note Annexure C-2 which is totally blank except printing performa. All the column of the job sheet or the particulars mentioned in this job sheet are not visible due to Photostat and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to hold that there was any manufacturing defect in the said HCL Tablet. Moreover, the complainant purchased the tablet on 28.11.2013 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 25.03.2014 i.e. after a period of near about 1 years. No guarantee or warranty card has been placed on file. Mere filing the copy of bill Annexure C-1, it cannot be presumed that tablet in question was having any manufacturing defect and the same is required to be replaced. No expert opinion or report has also been placed on file by the complainant.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case on merit. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.28.11.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

            (S.C.SHARMA  )                                          DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar

            MEMBER