Punjab

Sangrur

CC/47/2015

Baldeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Infomatics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sudarshan Kumar Garg

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  47

                                                Instituted on:    23.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.07.2015

 

 

 

Baldeep Kumar aged 32 years son of Amar Nath, resident of Village Ghabdan, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Micromax Infomatics Ltd. 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director.

2.             Kings Electronics, Opposite Patwari Khanna Near Bus Stand, Sangrur (authorised service centre of Micromax) through its authorised signatory.

3.             Chhabra Communications, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sudarshan Garg, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2       :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3.            :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baldeep Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Micromax Canvas Juice A177 mobile set bearing IMEI number 911362651552525 vide bill number 3842 dated 21.4.2014 from OP number 3 for Rs.8000/- with one year warranty of the same against any of the defects.  The case of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2014, the mobile set in question started giving problem and as such, the complainant approached OP number 2, who kept the phone set with it and told to come in the evening. The OP number 2 returned the mobile set to the complainant in the evening with an assurance that the there is no problem in the mobile set.  It is further stated that after some days when he checked the mobile set, he found that the mobile set was having different IMEI number. The complainant immediately approached OP number 2, then OP number 2 admitted his fault and promised to return the same, but nothing happened despite his repeated visits to the OP number 2.  The complainant also reported the matter to the SHO PS City Sangrur through application on 12.9.2014, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to handover the complainant the original  cell phone or in the alternative to give a new cell phone or to refund the amount of Rs.8000/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 7.4.2015.

 

3.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is a gross abuse of process of law as the complainant never approached to the OP number 2 for any defect in the mobile set.  That the complaint has been filed only with a motive to harass the OPs and that the facts narrated in the complaint are ambiguous and equivocal and it is not clear on whose name the mobile set was purchased.  On merits, it is admitted that the mobile set was purchased from OP number 2 with one year warranty. Any defect in the mobile set has been denied by the OPs.  It is further denied by the Ops that the complainant ever approached the Ops about any of the defect in the mobile set in question.  The remaining allegations of the complaint have also been denied by the OPs in toto. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of application, Ex.C-7 expert report, Ex.C-8 affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Ex.C-9 affidavit of Aman Sharma, Ex.C-10 affidavit of complainant closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced affidavit Ex.OP1&2/1 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill dated 21.04.2014 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.8000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3. But, in the present case, the main grievance of the complainant is that though he approached OP number 2 in the month of August, 2014 with the defective mobile set and the OP number 2 kept the mobile set and advised to come in the evening to collect the same duly repaired.  But, OP number 2 has clearly denied this fact that the complainant never approached it with the mobile set or with any grievance in the mobile set.  The complainant has not produced any job order sheet or receipt showing that the mobile set was handed over to OP number 2.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not mentioned any date or time, when he approached OP number 2.  The complainant has mentioned in the complaint that in the month of August, 2014 he approached OP number 2.  There is nothing mentioned in the complaint that what problem was suffering the mobile set.  It seems that the complaint is vague and without any basis nor is supported by any job sheet.  More so when, the Ops have clearly mentioned in the reply that the complainant never approached them for any grievance in the mobile set. Further the complainant has referred the report of expert issued by Naresh Kumar of Naresh Mobile Repair Store, Bhawanigarh, which is dated 6.12.2014, wherein he has mentioned that the mobile set was containing different IMEI numbers, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the complainant, as it is not shown on record nor it has been mentioned that what was the qualification of the said Naresh Kumar.  Ex.C-8 is the affidavit of said Naresh Kumar, but in the same also he has not mentioned what is his qualification rather he has mentioned that he has good experience in the repair of mobile/cell phones of all companies.  The complainant has also produced on record the affidavit Ex.C-9 of one  Shri Aman Sharma, wherein he has mentioned that he accompanied the complainant in the month of August, 2014 to visit OP number 2, but again he has failed to mention on what date they approached OP number 2.  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on record any defect in the mobile set by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.    We have also perused the affidavit of one Nirbhai Singh, Proprietor Kings Electronics, wherein he has clearly stated that the complainant never approached OP number 2 and the story mentioned in the complaint is said to be totally false and concocted one.  In the circumstances of the case, we find no case made out against the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 13, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member