BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.50 of 2016
Date of Instt. 22.01.2016
Date of Decision :23.11.2016
Sukhpal Singh S/o Balbir Singh R/o VPO Mustafapur, Distt. Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
Xolo Care, A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301 (U.P.) India.
Bunty Mobile World, Hotel Preet Market, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Amit Shram Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1 Exparte.
Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OP No.2 & 3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that complainant want to purchase a mobile set for himself as well as his wife and accordingly on 23/1/2015, complainant purchased two mobile set from opposite party No. 1 make Xolo Mobile Q1020 911405300006417 at the rate of Rs. 9800/- and another Xolo Mobile 8X-1200 911376300005412 at the rate of Rs. 18,300/-.
2. That however after one week of purchase of Xolo Mobile Q1020 911405300006417. the battery of the mobile phone blasted. Luckily no one was near the phone at that point of time. After that the complainant approach the opposite party No.1, who sent the complainant to the office of opposite party No.3, which the official service centre of opposite party No.2 because the mobile was in warranty period, so the complainant immediately went there at the asking of opposite party No.1. But when the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 they totally refused to check the phone and said that they will not replace or provide new battery. When the complainant continuously requested the opposite party NO.3 to give new battery to the complainant, they asked him to come on another day, so that they can confirm from the opposite party No.2 about the status of the same. But after that they not only harass the complainant but also humiliate him, so in this way the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No. 1 & 3 for at least 20 times, but both of them refuses to provide the new battery. The complainant also offered them to give it at market price but they still did not give it to the complainant.
3. That not only this, the other mobile which the complainant purchased from of the shop of opposite party No. 1 on the same day i.e. 23/01/2015 become defective after certain months. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 who again sent the complainant to office of opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 received the defective phone alongwith its all accessory and box from the complainant on 16/7/2015 and issued them the receipt and after that they said that they would sent the phone to the office of opposite party No.2 because it is dead and its touch does not working at all. They called the complainant after two weeks. But when the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.3 many times they not only refused to return the phone and its accessories but also, humiliate the complainant in front of his wife and many other strangers in their office. When the opposite party NO.1 was again approached by the complainant they stated that “it is their choice to do what to do”. All the request given and reasons to opposite parties fell on the deaf ear and as such the necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the opposite parties may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% and Rs. 15,000/- as a cost of legal fee etc.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No.1 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte whereas OP No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and further alleged that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable on the grounds of mis-joinder, non-joinder as the manufacturer has not been arrayed as a party to the complaint and further alleged that the present complaint has been filed without any technical report, so the same is required to be dismissed and further alleged that there is no defect in the mobile set what to speak about manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 is one of the renowned company in India and along with other products is engaging in business of manufacturing mobiles and its sales. That on a single time thousands of mobiles are manufactured and if there is any alleged manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same, then the same will occur in an entire lot. It is further submitted that till date, the answering respondent was not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the same model mobile manufactured by the answering respondent of the same lot. That the complaint is regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issues in the unit at the service centre of the company and on the same day service centre issued a DOA (Dead on arrival) letter to the complainant vide complaint (DOA certificate means complaint can get replacement form the dealer/ distributor). But the complaint refused to accept the DOA certificate being adamant and demanded refund to which the complainant was told that the unit of the complainant will be replaced with the new one and the demand for refund is not genuine and the same is against the company policy. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased two mobile set and remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex. CW2/B alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP2 & 3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 2 & 3.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After scrutinized the entire pleadings and documents, we find that the nutshell claim of the complainant is only that he purchased two mobile set on 23/1/2015 from opposite party No.1. The model and make of mobile are Xolo Mobile Q1020 911405300006417 for a sum of Rs. 9800/- and other Xolo Mobile 8X-1200 911376300005412 for Rs. 18,300/- and to prove the purchase of two mobiles, the complainant has obviously prove on the file copy of invoices Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and we think that the factum of purchase of two mobiles by the complainant is not denied by the opposite party No. 2 & 3 rather it is admitted by the opposite parties in its written reply. Now question remains whether both the mobile set of the complainant are defective or not? For that purpose, it is required for the complainant to bring on the file any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in both the mobiles but for that purpose, the complainant has not brought on the file any such type of expert evidence. No doubt one job sheet Ex. C3 has been brought on the file by the complainant in regard to mobile set IMEI No. 911376J00005412 which was purchased for Rs. 18,300/- vide invoice Ex. C2 and that mobile was deposited with the opposite party No.2 customer care centre who issued the job sheet Ex. C3 wherein the defect in the mobile set was describe as dead and touch does not working and said set was repaired by the service centre and then handed over to the complainant or his representative and this job sheet itself shows that the aforesaid mobile set was collected after repair with the satisfaction. That the mobile set is OK and then either complainant or his representative put his signatures. It is not the case of the complainant that he himself or his representative never put signatures on the job sheet Ex. C3. So, it means that the mobile set having price of the Rs. 18,300/- was repaired and returned to the complainant and thereafter if any other defect was occurred then the complainant is required to deposit the same with the service centre but no other job sheet is produced or prove on the file. So, it means that there is no deficiency in regard to mobile so purchased by the complainant having a price of Rs. 18,300/-.
8. So far the concern of the other mobile set purchased by the complainant for Rs. 9800/- is related regarding that the complainant himself alleged in the complaint that the said set was having some defect but he never approached to the opposite party for repairing the said set. If virtually, the mobile set in question having any problem at any stage then the complainant must deposit the same with the service centre of the opposite party. If so then the job sheet must be issued and it is required for the complainant to brought on the file said job sheet but no job sheet has been brought on the file by the complainant nor any other documentary evidence brought on the file that the said second mobile set have any manufacturing defect. For that purpose, the remedy with the complainant was to examined any expert of the mobile set or deposit the said with the customer care centre of the opposite party but the complainant did not to do so for the best known reason. So, it means the complainant has miserably fails to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. In view of above detailed discussion, we do not find any force in the argument of the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
23.11.2016 Member President
