Haryana

StateCommission

A/474/2016

MANISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOBILE BUZZ - Opp.Party(s)

ASHUTOSH GUPTA

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.474 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 12/26.05.2016

Date of Decision: 10.06.2016

 

Manish son of Sh.Mahinder Kumar Chaoudhary resident of House No.257, Sector 1 Jail Land, Ambala City.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Mobile Buzz, Prem Nagar, Main Road Near Petrol Pump, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/partner/authorized signatory.
2. Ambey Electronics Service, DS-14, HUDA Market Sector-1, Ambala-134003, through its Proprietor/Partner/authorized signatory.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased telephone from OP No.1 on 23.07.2013 for Rs.33,000/- and it worked properly upto 15.05.2014.  Thereafter problem occurred in display and mobile icon was not appearing on the screen. He visited office of Op No.2 on 11.05.2014 and delivered the handset for checking. Job card was issued to this effect. After some days he went to office of Op No.2 but screen of the phone was not functioning properly. He asked him to come after some days. He put-off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately stated that the telephone could not be repaired and it was having manufacturing defect. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they be directed to replace the phone or to refund the cost of phone i.e. Rs.33,000/- alongwith Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.22,000/-as litigation expenses.

2.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 29.03.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of job sheet, it is clear that the telephone was not working properly and was given for repairs on 16.05.2014. It shows that the set was not working properly and the Op be directed to refund of the cost of the same. Learned District Forum failed to appreciate this aspect and wrongly dismissed the complaint.

                             This argument has no force. Learned District Forum, Ambala has rightly dismissed the complaint because there  is no evidence to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the telephone. If the same has been given for repairs it does not mean that there was inherent defect. As per job sheet Annexure A-2 condition of the set was shown as “Liquid Ingression” and not any type of manufacturing defect. As per version of the complainant, telephone was working properly upto  15.05.2014. Had there been any defect the problem could have occurred at the initial stage. In the absence of any document, it cannot be presumed that there was any manufacturing defect in the phone. Findings of the learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and can not to be interfered. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

June, 10th 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.