DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/313 of 07.11.2014.
Decided on: 27.02.2015.
Mayank aged 25 years S/o. Sh. Om Parkash Kashyap, R/o. #24, Press Colony, Street No.1, Near Mai Ji Ki Sarai, Patiala.
….….Complainant.
Versus
- Mobile World-2013-14, Lahori Gate, Patiala, through its Proprietor.
- Lava International Ltd. through its M.D., A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301.
….…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D.R. Arora, President.
Smt. Neelam Gutpa, Member.
Present: Sh. Amar Singh counsel for the complainant.
Smt. Mandeep Kaur counsel for O.P no.1.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA:
1. The complainant purchased a mobile handset, make IRIS-XI from O.P no.1 vide invoice No.4266, dated 04.09.2014 for an amount of Rs.7,800/-. It is averred that on the very first day of the said purchase, some problem cropped up in the mobile phone and the complainant approached O.P no.1 to get the fault rectified. O.P no.1 told the complainant to contact the service centre of the company. Accordingly, the complainant visited the service centre of the company on 05.09.2014, 06.09.2014, 13.09.2014 and 13.11.2014 but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified, being a manufacturing defect as stated by the mechanic of the service centre but he did not give anything in writing to that effect.
2. It is averred that the complainant again approached O.P no.1 but to no use. Ultimately, he approached this Forum against the O.Ps through the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the O.Ps to refund the cost of the mobile hand set as also cost of litigation and compensation.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against O.P no.1 only, who appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After admitting the fact that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from O.P no.1 on 04.09.2014, it denied all the allegations leveled against it in the complaint and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit, Ex. CB, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Ritesh Ghai, C.A along with the documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C2 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of O.P no.1, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex. OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Sachdeva Ex. OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Jagjeet Singh and closed the evidence of the O.P.
5. The O.P filed written arguments. We have examined the same, heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through evidence on record.
6. Ex. C1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone from O.P no.1 on 4th September, 2014. Ex. C2 is the warranty card. The complainant has failed to show that he ever visited the service centre although it is alleged that he visited the service centre on 05.09.2014, 06.09.2014, 13.09.2014 and 13.11.2014. He has neither placed any job sheet on record which may show that any problem ever occurred in the said mobile phone nor has he made the service centre, a party to the complaint. O.P no.1 in its written statement has altogether denied that the complainant ever approached it regarding any problem in the mobile phone. In the absence of any evidence, going against the O.P., it is very difficult to attribute any deficiency of service on its part.
7. In view of aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the complaint of the complainant is without any basis and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
Pronounced.
Dated: 27.02.2015.
D.R. Arora Neelam Gupta President Member
