Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/110/2021

Dharamveer S/o Puran Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mobiile Care - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder Singh

13 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.110 of 2021.

Date of Instt. 7.04.2021.

Date of Decision:13.01.2022.

 

Dharamveer aged about 27 years, son of Puran Singh resident of village Kainthala Khurd Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

Mobile Care near Aggarsain Chowk, Opposite # 1620, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra through its proprietor.

                ….…Opposite party.

 

                Complaint under Section  35 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Ms.Neelam Member.

                 

Present:     Sh.Jaswinder Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                 OP ex parte.

 

                 This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Dharamveer  against Mobile  Care.-Opposite Party.

 

2.             As per the present complaint, the complainant OP has advertised to provide best services to its customers and to repair the mobile in case of any defect therein. On being attached with the said fact and assurance of the OP, the complainant approached the OP for repair of the mobile on 22.2.2021 and gave mobile to the OP for repair and the OP supplied visiting card to the complainant with the assurance that if any defect/problem will be in the smooth running of the mobile, then the OP will remove the same. The OP charged Rs.2500/- as repair charges of the mobile from the complainant on 22.02.2021 for display folder as the same was broken but the OP has not issued the receipt of the said amount. The display folder was inserted in the mobile by the OP but the same did not work and the complainant again visited the OP and requested to the OP to  refund the amount and to retain the display folder by removing the same but the OP shouted that the display folder is OK but it is not working. The complainant alongwith Samsung A30 mobile phone visited the  OP on 1.3.2021, 2.3.2021 and 3.3.2021 to get back the said amount by making repeated requests and legal notice   but the OP has not paid the amount and abused  and insulted the complainant and threatened to  kill  him, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OP be directed to pay compensation on account of deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP but the OP failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, vide order dated 14.10.2021, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file very carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant  while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant visited the OP on 22.2.2021 for repair of his mobile phone as display folder of the phone was broken. The OP charged Rs.2500/- and repaired the phone but it did not work and the complainant asked the complainant to retain the display folder and to refund the amount taken from him but the OP did not do so. The complainant visited the OP on 1.3.2021, 2.3.2021 and 3.3.2021 but the  OP  refused to do the needful, rather threatened him with dire consequences.  Thus, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP and requested for refund of the amount received by him alongwith compensation.

 

7.             After having heard the learned counsel for the compla8inant and going through the record we see that the complainant is not proved to be a consumer qua the OP. There is no receipt of the amount received by the OP from the complainant. The complainant has placed on record a paper Ex.C-5 alleging the same as job sheet regarding repair of the mobile phone but its perusal shows that it does not contain any material which may help the complainant.  This document does not show that any repair of the mobile was carried or it also does not prove that any type of warranty or guarantee for the alleged repairs was allegedly given by the OP. As per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act  “consumer “ means any person:

 

                (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised  or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of  deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods f  or consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is  made  with the approval of such person but does not include a person who  obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

        (ii)  hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for  consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system deferred payment , when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 

8.             As the   payment of  amount by the complainant to the OP is not proved. Therefore, as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer qua the OP and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, no deficiency in services on the part of the OP is proved.

 

9.             As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such same is hereby dismissed.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 13.01.2022

                                                                        President.

 

                                Member       Member.