DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.215 of 25.7.2007 Decided on : 20.9.2007 <br /> <br /> Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Manohar Lal, R/o Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda C/o Arun Kumar Manohar Lal, The Mall, Goniana Mandi. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. Motorola, A-26, B-1, Extension, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44 through its Managing Director.<br /> 2. M/s. S.K. Enterprises, 4693, Hospital Bazar, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> 3. Ucom Technology (P) Ltd, 255, Veer Colony, Bathinda through its Manager/Incharge<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. C.D. Arora, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Due to the tall claims made regarding mobile handset make Motorola, model L-6 by opposite party No.2, one such set was purchased by the complainant having its IMEI No. 351951-01-6608753 vide invoice No. 503 dated 25.9.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 5,700/-. Opposite party No.2 which is the authorised distributor and super stockist of opposite party No.1, provided one year warranty on the set in case of any type of defect in it. Set was not in order and was defective. On 30.9.2006, complainant had taken the set to opposite party No.2 which advised him to approach opposite party No.3 which is the authorised service centre of opposite party No.1. Accordingly, he took the set to opposite party No.3 which retained it vide Job Sheet No. 3540 dated 30.9.2006 with the assurance that it would be set right in the evening. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No. 3 in the evening on 30.9.2006. He was told that mobile set was okay. On checking, he found that it was not working. Opposite party No.3 retained it saying that it would set it right within three/four days. On 4.10.2006, opposite party No.3 told him that mobile set is dead and its internal water ID is missing. He assails the observations as illegal and not factual. It is added by him that mobile set was purchased on 25.9.2006 and was taken to opposite party No.3 on 30.9.2006 dafter five days. Hence, plea of opposite party No.3 that internal water ID is missing is not convincing. Infact, on 30.9.2006 there were no such remarks regarding missing of the internal water ID. It was after 30.9.2006 opposite party No.3 itself removed the internal water ID and tampered with the mobile handset. Job Sheet was also tampered by opposite party No.3 and set was returned after getting his signatures without repairs. He requested opposite party No.2 either to repair the set or to provide new set in its place as it was well within its warranty period, but it paid no heed. Legal notice dated 8.12.2006 was got served by him upon the opposite parties. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he alleges mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the defective handset with a new one; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation and Rs. 3,300/- as costs. <br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were served for 30.8.2007. No-one came present on their behalf. Accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte. Registered A.D post notice was sent to opposite party No.1 on 6.8.2007. Neither registered cover nor A.D was received within 30 days. Accordingly, it has been presumed that opposite party No.1 has been duly served. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte. <br /> 3. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopy of retail invoice dated 25.9.2006 (Ex.C.2), photocopy of legal notice dated 8.12.2006 (Ex.C.3), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.6) and photocopy of job sheet (Ex.C.7).<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. <br /> 5. Complainant reiterates his version in his affidavit Ex.C.1. Handset was purchased by him from opposite party No.2 vide invoice dated 25.9.2006 for Rs. 5,700/- as is evident from Ex.C.2. Copy of the Job Sheet dated 30.9.2006 placed and proved on record by the complainant is Ex.C.7. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established as the set was purchased on 25.9.2006 and it became defective and was taken to opposite party No. 3 for repairs on 30.9.2006. It was not repaired. Plea of opposite party No.3 that internal water ID is missing is not plausible. Set is well within the warranty period.<br /> 6. We have considered the arguments. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. Allegations of the complainant have been mentioned by him in paras No. 2 & 3 of the complaint. He alleges that mobile handset was tampered by opposite party No. 3 as he was told on 30.9.2006 that it was okay. For this, learned counsel for the complainant drew our attention to the Job Sheet which was shown to us and copy of the same is Ex.C.7. It does not appeal to us that Job Sheet has been tampered by opposite party No.3. It is a matter of common knowledge that when some product like mobile handset is brought for repairs generally its patent condition is shown in the Job Sheet without knowing the internal defect. Outward condition of the set of the complainant was okay on 30.9.2006. Accordingly, remarks appear to have been recorded on the Job Sheet and complainant was directed that it would be set right within three/four days. It appears that after opening the mobile handset when the defect came to the notice of opposite party No.3, complainant was apprised that it is dead and its internal water ID is missing. Had the set been tampered with by opposite party No.3, after it was handed over to it on 30.9.2006 and before it was delivered to the complainant on 4.10.2006, he must have raised hue and try and would not have received the set. He could refuse to receive the set saying that on 30.9.2006 there was no such defect in the set. It is also worth mentioning that complainant received the handset on 4.10.2006. Thereafter, he remained sitting folded hands and filed this complaint on 25.7.2007. Long silence on his part certainly casts clouds on the story of the complainant and makes it improbable and incredible. No explanation has been furnished by him as to why after 4.10.2006 till he sent notice to the opposite parties on 8.12.2006, he remained mum. Terms and conditions of the warranty have not been placed and proved on record. They could go to show that mobile set having such like defects does not go beyond warranty and opposite parties are yet liable either to repair or replace it. Version of the complainant that on 30.9.2006, opposite party No.3 did not give remarks regarding missing of internal water ID, cannot be given any weight. As mentioned above, these remarks could not be given without opening the handset. It is not the case of the complainant that mobile handset was opened on 30.9.2006 itself in his presence and thereafter observations that it is okay were recorded. <br /> 7. In the premises written above, it is difficult to conclude that complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties merely on the ground that set was purchased on 25.9.2006 and was taken to opposite party No.3 on 30.9.2006. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 20.9.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'