DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/25 of 21/01/2015

Decided on 30/07/2015

Raj Kumar Pathi resident of Gandhi Nagar, Lahori Gate, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director.

2. M/s Aneja Tele Communication, 121, Sabzi Mandi, Patiala through its Proprietor/ partner.

3. M/s Ganesh Electrical, # 37-C, Manshahia Colony, Near 21 No. Phatak, Patiala through its Proprietor.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. A. S. Bhatia Advocate

For Opposite parties no.1 & 3 : Sh. Sunil Gupta Advocate.

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Micromax, Model A-113 on 18/10/2013 from OP no.2 for an amount of Rs.11,750/- vide invoice no.14238. It is averred that after few months of the said purchase, the mobile set started giving problem and the mobile set used to get heated up and its display touch was not functioning properly. The complainant approached OP no.2 who told the complainant to approach Op no.3 i.e. Service centre. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP no.3 on 6/1/2014. The officials of the service centre gave the assurance that it will be repaired and returned soon vide job card no.90208-01147378124 and returned back the mobile set on 13/2/2014 after rectifying the defect. Again on 15/2/2014, the complainant approached OP no.3, who issued a job card no.90208-0214-8167958 with an assurance to rectify the defect and handed over the mobile phone set to complainant on 26/3/2014. The same problem still persisted and the complainant again approached OP no.3 and deposited the mobile hand set with OP no.3 vide job card no.90208-0514-9962393. OP no.3 returned the mobile hand set back on 14/6/2014 without rectifying the problem. The complainant approached Op no.3 time and again but to no effect. On 29/9/2014, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs through registered post. After under going a lot of harassment, the complainant approached this Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.1 and 3 only who appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint.

3. In their written statement, it is clearly admitted that the complainant approached OP no.3 on 6/1/2014 and after rectifying the defect in the mobile phone, the same was returned to the complainant on 13/2/2014. Again the complainant approached OP no.3 on 15/2/2014 and deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 Again OP no.3 rectified the defect and returned the same to the complainant on 26/3/2014. After few days the complainant again approached OP no.3 with same problem in the mobile phone which was rectified by OP no.3 and mobile set was returned to complainant on 14/6/2014. As such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of OPs because whenever the complainant approached OP no.3, his complaint was properly attended to and the problem was rectified. After denying all other allegations, going against the OPs, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and his counsel closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, ld. counsel for Ops no.1 & 3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Dhiraj Babbar, Prop. of M/s Ganesh Electricals and closed the evidence.

6. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice whereby the complainant purchased one Mobile phone from OP no.2 on 18/10/2013. The complainant has alleged that after some time the mobile phone started giving problem and accordingly he approached OP no.3. So the complainant approaced OP no.3 for the first time vide job card dt. 6/1/2014, then on 15/2/2014 and thereafter vide job card no.90208/0514/9962393 date not disclosed. But the complainant has failed to produce the relevant job sheets which were very much necessary for highliting the defects in the mobile phone. On the other hand it is the plea taken by OP that as and when the complainant approached OP no.3, it rectified the defect and returned the mobile phone to the complainant as such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of Ops. It seems that the complainant has intentionally withheld the job sheets in order to hide the satisfaction notes written by the complainant on the job sheets. When the complainant failed to produce the job sheets, during the course of arguments, the court directed the complainant to produce the mobile set so as to see the performance of the same. Accordingly the counsel for the complainant produced the mobile hand set, make Micromax A-113 but the IMEI number mentioned there on did not tally with the IMEI numbers mentioned on the retail invoice Ex.C-1 dt. 18/10/2013 which the complainant had purchased from OP no.2. In the retail invoice the IMEI numbers are mentioned as IMEI (1) no. 911306250156352 and IMEI (2) no.911306250 156360 but the mobile hand set bears IMEI numbers as IMEI (1) no.91130 6250176632 and IMEI (2) no.911306250176640 and therefore the mobile hand set produced before the Forum was not the same which was purchased by the complainant and regarding which the complainant has brought this complaint.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been playing the game of hide and seek and has rather played a game with the Forum firstly by not producing any of the job sheets and secondly by producing the mobile hand set with a different IMEI numbers. He has thus caused undue harassment to the OPs by dragging them into forced litigation without any cause of action and as such the complaint is found to be frivolous and vexatious. It is therefore dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to OP no.3 under Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Order be complied by the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 30/07/2015

Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

Member President Member