DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.244 of 15.6.2016

                                      Decided on: 09.11.2016

Sumesh Pal aged about 39 years son of Sh.Anil Kumar R/o H.No.1369, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Micromax Mobiles, having its Head Office at Micromax House, 90-B,Sector 18, Gurgaon, Pin-122022, Haryana, through its authorized person.

2.       M/s Satguru Telecom, Shop No.3, Multani Market, Bharat Colony, near New Bus Stand, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Chamandeep S Mittal, Advocate

                                      counsel for  complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT. NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1.           The complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile set, model No.A-310 vide M_IMEI1:911375705598575, S_IMEI12:911375705638058 from New Mobile Word, for an amount of Rs.12,500/-. It is averred that after purchasing the said mobile phone, the complainant from the very beginning faced various problems i.e. problem of vanishing signals while talking with others due to which the call went on cut/disconnected, phone restarts suddenly, problem in charging, problem in listening, problem in screen etc. The complainant approached the authorized service centre of the company i.e. O.P. No.2 15-16 times and every time O.P. No.2 told the complainant that the mobile set needed formatting service of the software but the complainant faced the same problem  again and again. It is further averred that when the mobile phone went out of warranty, OP No.2 told the complainant that the mother board of the mobile phone in question was defective due to which the complainant’s mobile phone was not working perfectly. The complainant asked OP no.2 that why it did not tell the complainant about the mother board problem in the mobile phone while it was within the warranty period. On this OP no.2 told the complainant that since the motherboard of the mobile phone is costly that is why its officials kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. As a result, the complainant underwent not only physical harassment but also mental agony as well as suffered financially.
2.           On 26.2.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the O.Ps but to no use. Failure on the part of O.Ps to rectify the defect in the mobile phone amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short  the Act)
3.           On notice, O.Ps. failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
4.           In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith other documents Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
5.           The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
6.           Ex.C4 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from ‘Mobile World’ on 28.9.2014. The complainant has alleged that from the very beginning of the said purchase, the mobile phone was giving various problems and the complainant contacted OP No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company 15-16 times but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified. On 26.2.2016, the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.Ps. but to no use. Ex.C1, is the copy of the legal notice and Exs.C2 and C3 are its postal receipts.
7.           In the present case, though the complainant has alleged that he approached OP No.2 15-16 times but he has not placed on record any job sheet which may show that there ever occurred any problem in the mobile phone during the warranty period. The onus is on the party who alleges any defect in the goods purchased by him or her to prove his/her case. Here, the complainant has miserably failed to place on record even a single piece of evidence, which may show that there ever occurred any problem in the mobile phone during warranty period and the O.Ps. failed to rectify the same. As such, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the O.Ps.
8.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint is devoid of any merit, as the complainant has failed to prove his case and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.                                                          

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                      PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER

DATED: 09.11.2016