BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JIND.
Complaint Case No. : 503 of 2021
Date of Institution : 24.08.2021
Date of Decision : 07.10.2022
Dr. R.K. Jain son of late Sh. S.P. Jain R/o presently 2898, Urban Estate, Jind-126102.
.….Complainant
Versus
1. Mr. Vinod Kansal, Proprietor, Anshul Communications S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Anaj Mandi, Near Durga Mandir (Raj Aata Chakki Waale) Kalayat, Kaithal (Haryana). Cellphone Whatsapp No.9812183555.
2. Mr. Sachin through respondent No.1 s/o Unknown R/o Jind (Haryana)-126102. Ceollphone Whatsapp No.7404382286.
3. GIONEE MOBILES through its Managing Director/authorized representative C/o Padget Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-18 Phase 2 Noida (UP) India 201305
2nd Address:
D-170, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 India.
gcare@gionee.co.in.Gioneeindia@Gioneeindia/
4. Mr. Ramesh, Manager, Authorized Service Centre Gionee Mobiles, Mobile Hut 301/12, Aashu Complex, Punjabi Chowk, Narvana, Jind-126116 (Whatsapp No.9812018732). [01681-241332]
……Respondents/Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.
CORAM: SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. NEERU AGARWAL, MEMBER.
SH. G.D. GOYAL, MEMBER.
Present: Dr. R.K. Jain-complainant in person.
OPs No.1 to 3 exparte vide order dated 28.10.2021.
OP No.4 exparte vide order dated 20.01.2022.
ORDER:
Shorn off unnecessary details, complainant who is a Specialist Doctor by profession purchased one Smartphone in the name and style of Gionee, Model No. ‘Max Pro’ with configuration of 2 GB RAM and 16 GB ROM from OP No.1 who was distributor qua the said mobile phone. As per complainant, he purchased the Smartphone in question about 2 years back from the date of filing of complaint but no any receipt/bill for the purchase of phone was supplied to the complainant though complainant paid Rs.5500/- against the purchase of said Smartphone. According to complainant, the battery of the phone in question did not work properly and used to take about 8 hours to get charged and while in use, the battery discharged very rapidly within minutes. In this regard, the complainant contacted OP No.2 on 27.07.2021 who assured him to redress his grievance on the next day but nothing happened. Thereafter, complainant contacted OP No.1 on 02.08.2021 but all his requests fell to the deaf hears. So, complainant set communication to Ops No.1 to 3 through e-mail as well as on whatsapp but nothing happened. Resultantly, the complainant suffered loss of around Rs.15,000/- as he not being able to use his cell phone for major part of the day. Not only this, the complainant kept on losing almost Rs.1000/- per day on account of deficiency in the cell phone in question. Besides it, complainant also suffered loss & set back on 12.08.2021 when he could not participate in online hearing of a consumer matter before Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal nos. 169 of 2021 and 170 of 2021 on 12.08.2021 and consequently, the matter was adjourned. The complainant despite many requests on his part was left high and dry of the Ops due to their irrespective behavior and negligent attitude. In the concluding para of the complaint, complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the Ops to furnish him the original bill of purchase, complete list of functional service centres, e-mail IDs of the Ops as also of service centers concerned and also manual of spare-parts with price thereof with complete postal addresses. Besides it, the complainant has sought Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation and the cost of the mobile phone and also punitive damages of Rs.15,000/- as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint by supporting an affidavit.
2.Notice of complaint was issued to the Ops but they did not bother to appear. As such, OPs No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.10.2021 whereas OP No.4 was served through whatsapp by the complainant but he also failed to appear before this Commission and thus having no alternative, he was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.01.2022.
3. To prove his contention, complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed his evidence.
4.We have heard the complainant and evaluated the documents/evidence placed on file by the complainant to prove his version.
5. At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that complainant has alleged in para no.1 of the complaint that he purchased the smart phone in question of Gionee Company about ‘2 years back after making cutting of typed as 3 years’ back whereas he has stated in para no.2 of the affidavit that ‘he purchased the smart phone in question from OP No.1 about 3 years back’ and further in Ex. C-4 (Annexure P-4) i.e. Transcripts of telephone talk with respondent No.1 on 27.02.2021 that “Complainant: ……do dhai sal pehle phone liya that, koi alternative ho? Aapke paas nahi pari hai battery?” Meaning thereby that the complainant himself is not confirmed when he purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.1. Further, from perusal of above referred 3 contradictory statements of complainant i.e. one in the complaint, other one in affidavit and the third one in the transcripts, it reveals that the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question in the year of 2018 from OP No.1 through OP No.2. Besides it, complainant has alleged in sub-para of para no.1 of the complaint that “No any receipt or bill of purchase of the Smartphone in question at the rate of Rs.5500/- was ever issued by OP No.1 to him.” which is apparent deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1” but the aforesaid version put forth by the complainant is also not believable since he never filed any complaint against the OPs for non-issuance of the receipt/bill for sale of the mobile phone in question in the year of 2018 if complainant has any grudge against the Ops on this score, he must have filed the complaint against the Ops in the year of 2018 and now the aforesaid complaint has been filed on 18.08.2021 which is admittedly time barred since more than 2 ½ years have elapsed from the date of purchase of the mobile phone in question. Furthermore, Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act says that “(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.” But complainant has not explained any iota qua the delay in not filing the present complaint within stipulated period of 2 years nor the complainant has filed any application for codoning the delay alongwith the main complaint and thus in these circumstances, the complaint in question is not maintainable against the OPs being time barred. Further the complainant has tendered document Ex C-5 i.e. invoice of Gionee Mobile to show that the manufacturing year of the mobile in question is April-2019 and he complained to the OPs on 27.07.2021 & 02.08.2021 which is approximately within two years but on perusal of the document Ex. C-5, it reveals that invoice tendered by complainant relates to the Model F205 Pro of Gionee Company mentioning the cost of mobile set in question @ Rs.6690/- whereas as per pleadings in the complaint, complainant has purchased the mobile set in question @ Rs.5500/- of model Max Pro. So, in our view, the complainant has no leg to stand and thus the stand taken by the complainant is not trustworthy rather the same is to mislead the Commission. Further, it is a matter of common prudence that usually the mobile phone is having warranty for one year whereas its battery is having warranty only for six months. So, even otherwise, the mobile in question of the complainant was beyond warranty as per pleadings of complainant.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the version put forth by the complainant is not believable at all. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced on: 07.10.2022. (A.K. SARDANA) PRESIDENT
(Gopal Singh)
Stenographer (Neeru Agarwal)
Member
(G.D. Goyal)
Member
