Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 508.
Instituted on : 26.09.2019.
Decided on . 31.12.2019.
Jitender age 29 years s/o Late Sh.Raj Kapoor r/o IInd Water Works, Qt. No.II, Staff colony, Rohtak. .
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Mobile World Shop no.129, Palika Bazar, Opp. Civil Hospital, Rohtak, through Sh.Rakesh Owner/Prop/. Incharge.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is having a mobile phone Make G5S+ and the same had stopped working. So he contacted the opposite party on dated 23.09.2019 for repair of the same. Opposite party demanded Rs.300/- for installation of jack and the complainant paid Rs.200/- at the same time and asked to pay Rs.100/- later after the repair. But after repair, the phone did not charge properly so he again contacted the opposite party. This time also, there was problem of charging and the opposite party told that there was problem in storage system. But after repair, phone could not work properly, so he contacted the other mechanic for repair of alleged phone and he told that the phone was pasted by the opposite party and it cannot be opened, and if the same is opened then display would be gone. It is averred that the phone has become more defective due to the opposite party and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed either to replace the phone or to refund the cost of mobile phone Rs.15000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Notice sent to opposite party received back served but opposite party failed to appear before the Forum. As such, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.11.2019 of this Forum.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 03.12.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the grievance of the complainant is that he has got repaired his mobile phone from the opposite party and after repair, it became more defective and is not repairable. But to prove this fact, complainant has only placed on record copy of visiting card Ex.C2 of the opposite party and has not placed on record any repair bill. He has also not placed on record any expert evidence to prove that the alleged mobile phone become more defective after repair by the opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.12.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
