Haryana

Jind

CC/67/2014

Jas Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metero Teleconnect. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Gita Ram

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 67 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 16.6.2014
   Date of final order: 23.6.2016

Jagdev Singh s/o Sh. Laxman Singh r/o VPO Bhawani Khera, District Kurukshetra. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Metro Teleconnect old bus stand, Jind through its Proprietor Raman.
Sony Care Centre, old bus stand, Thanesar, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
Sony India, registered office North A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi-110044 through its Managing Director.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Pawanjit Saini Adv. for opposite parties No.2&3.
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.      
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased one mobile of Soni company bearing IMEI No. 35809505-339102-3 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- vide bill No.1669 dated 8.3.2014 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre. The 
            Jagdev Singh Vs. Metro Teleconnect etc.
                      …2…
opposite party No.1 had given one year warranty of the above said mobile in question. The above said mobile began creating problem and was not working properly and screen of mobile set was got damaged. The complainant approached with the opposite party No.1 regarding damage of screen of the mobile but the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to approach with the opposite party No.2 who is authorized service centre. Thereafter, the complainant approached with the opposite party No.2 for removing the defects of the mobile set but the opposite party No.2 did not remove the defect of the mobile set and returned the same and told that the bill issued by opposite party No.1 is not genuine  as same was not bearing TIN number. The mobile set of the complainant is still lying dead due to defect noted above. The complainant served a legal notice dated 9.5.2013 through his counsel Sh. Gita Ram Adv. upon the opposite parties but all in vain.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.18,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared, opposite party No.1 has filed a separate written statement but the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have filed the joint written statement. Opposite party No.1 has stated in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no 
            Jagdev Singh Vs. Metro Teleconnect etc.
                      …3…
cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that he has received the mobile set in sealed and packed condition and sold the same to the complainant. If any fault of the mobile set then the authorized service centre is responsible to remove the defect and answering opposite party is not responsible of the same.  Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 26.3.2015. 
3.    Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have contended that the opposite party No.3 is liable to provide free of cost repair on the product only if the product has been purchased from a dealer authorized by the opposite party No.3. The service Engineer inspected the mobile set of the complainant and found that the touch screen of the handset had been damaged due to an external impact. The service engineer of the opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that as per clause 3 of the warranty supplied with the handset, cases of external physical damage are not covered by the said warranty. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of  cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of legal notice Ex. C-3 and  postal receipt Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have produced the affidavit of Sh. Priaynk Chauhan Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 15.7.2014 Ex. OP-2, copy of resolution Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 15.7.2014 Ex. OP-4, copy of 
            Jagdev Singh Vs. Metro Teleconnect etc.
                      …4…
important information Ex. OP-5 and  photograph of mobile set Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels of the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. counsel of the complainant argued that the mobile set in question stared giving problems from the very beginning from the date of purchase. In this case the grievance of the complainant that the screen has been got damaged or crack due to manufacturing defect but there is no document on the file whether screen of the mobile was cracked due to manufacturing defect. There is no any job sheet on the file on which we can observe that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect. The mobile set is lying dead. The complainant approached the service centre of the company for repair of the mobile phone but the same could not be repaired and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. 
6.    The Ld. Counsel of the opposite parties No.2 and 3 argued that the touch screen of the said mobile has been broken due to external impact and thereby there is no any manufacturing defect in the mobile. Moreover, the mobile set has been purchased from some unauthorized seller. Opposite party No.1 is already ex-parte. 
7.    After hearing the arguments and knowing the facts placed on file. We are of the considered view that the mobile phone has been damaged due to rough and tough handling by the complainant. The same is also clear from photograph of mobile Ex. OP-6 in which it appears that the touch screen has been broken due to some external impact. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 
            Jagdev Singh Vs. Metro Teleconnect etc.
                      …5…
opposite parties. Accordingly this Forum has no hesitation to dismiss the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own litigation expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 23.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             Jagdev Singh Vs. Metro Teleconnect etc.
                         
Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Pawanjit Saini Adv. for opposite parties No.2&3.
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.      

              Remaining rguments heard. To come up on 23.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  22.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Gita Ram Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Pawanjit Saini Adv. for opposite parties No.2&3.
          Opposite party No.1 already ex-parte.      
         
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  23.6.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel  of both the parties  and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that  the complainant  had purchased the mobile in question from opposite party No.1 on 8.3.2014 and he has paid Rs.18,500/-. Counsel for complainant further argued that  the above said mobile creating problem and was not function properly and screen of the mobile was damaged due to manufacturing defect and the same was not rectified by the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. In this case the grievance of the complainant that the screen has been got damaged or crack due to manufacturing defect but there is no document on the file whether screen of the mobile was cracked due to manufacturing defect. There is no any job sheet on the file on which we can observe that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect.
5.   On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties argued that our authorized centre has received the mobile in question for  repair  and  our authorized centre M/s Pushpak Enterprises has inspected the above said mobile and it was observed that damage is due to external impact as per Ex. OP-2. Meaning thereby the touch screen has been cracked due to mis-handling on the part of the complainant. It might have been due to  fall  on the ground and due to other reason best known to the complainant and  he cannot take the benefit for his own wrong. Apart from this the complainant has not produced any expert opinion/report which is mandatory as per Consumer Protection Act to prove that the mobile was having   manufacturing defect. So that the version of the opposite parties cannot be disbelieve. Hence, there is no force in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 23.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind