Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/645/2010

Sandeep S/o. Dharamvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Ajay Marketing Company - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Chauhan

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                                 Complaint No…..645 of 2010.

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 8.7.2010

                                                                                                 Date of decision: 04.06.2015

Sandeep son of Sh. Dharamvir resident of village Sayalba, Sub Tehsil Mustfabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Ajay Marketing Co. 24, Model Town, Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor/ Manager.

      2.Printer Solutions, Opp. Waryam Singh Hospital, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager/Proprietor.

                                                                                                                                                  …Opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of            

                        the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.              

 

Present:  Sh. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               OP No. 1 ex-parte.  

               OP No.2 given up.  

             

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts leading to the institution of present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile set  C-762 having connection of reliance company for an amount of Rs. 1450/- vide bill No. 5575 on 9.12.2008 from OP No.1and OP No.2 is authorized service centre.  After purchasing the said mobile phone, the same developed some problem as it did not work properly and complainant always faced problem to attend the call and to make any call. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 and told about the said problem and requested to redress his problem. On the advise of opposite party No.1, the complainant visited to the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and handed over the defective set to opposite party No.2. On this, the opposite party No.2 assured him that the defect will be removed and told the complainant to come after few days. After few days when the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2, who handed over the said mobile set to the complainant by saying that now mobile set was in order. But the same problem again started occurring and he again approached the opposite party No.1 who told him to go to authorized service centre, on this the complainant approached to opposite party No.2, who told him that the defect in the mobile set is manufacturing defect and it cannot be removed. Thereafter, the complainant visited to opposite party No.1 and requested him to replace the mobile set with new one but opposite party No.1 refused to accede to the genuine request of complainant and misbehaved with him. The act and conduct of the OPs are wrong and illegal and they are guilty of the deficient and negligent services to the complainant. The complainant has, thus, prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile set with a new one and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses etc. 

2.                     Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel but failed to file written statement and lastly when on 5.5.2014 none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 then ex-parte proceeding were taken  vide order dated 5.5.2014. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 5.5.2014 that he does not want to pursue complaint against OP No.2 being unnecessary party and was thus ordered to be given up vide order dated 5.5.2014.  

3.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Bill dated 9.12.2008, C-2 Photo copy of job sheet dated 10.2.2009, C-3 Copy of legal notice dated 21.1.2010, C-4 Postal receipt, C-5 Acknowledgement.  

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. From the perusal of Annexure C-1,  it is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile set from the OP No.1 on 9.12.2008 by paying a sum of Rs. 1450/-. The complainant has alleged that the mobile set in question became defective after few days from its purchase and the defects could not be rectified by the Ops.  The main question involved in this case is whether the mobile set in question was within warranty period or not? The complainant has only placed one job card dated 10.2.2009, however, in this job card no manufacturing defect has been reported by the complainant and after that no complaint whatsoever had been lodged with the opposite parties and the present complaint has been filed on 8.7.2010 i.e. after one year and eight months from the date of purchase of mobile set. It means the set in question was working properly from 10.2.2009 to till the date of issuance of legal notice dated 21.1.2010. Moreover the complainant has not tendered any documents/ warranty card to prove that the mobile set in question was having any warranty period. Merely from filing of purchase bill and legal notice it cannot be presumed that mobile set was in warranty and was having any manufacturing defect. Even no report from any technical expert has been placed on file regarding any defect in the mobile set in question.  Besides this, the complainant has given up the service centre as unnecessary party whereas the service centre is necessary party if the mobile set is having any manufacturing defect because the service centre is working on behalf of  manufacturer. 

                        In view of the above noted circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the opposite parties are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

Announced: 4.6.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA   )

                                                                                                MEMBER.