Gaurav S/o Hira Nand filed a consumer case on 23 May 2016 against M/s City Communication in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/159/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jun 2016.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.159 of 2016
Date of instt.: 20.05.2016
Date of decision:23.05.2016
Gaurav on of Shri Hira Nand aged about 24 years resident of Karan Gate near Dayalpura Gate Arya Samaj, Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s City Communication, shop no.10, opposite bus Stand, Karnal through its owner/prop.
2. M/s Motorola, (Authorized Service Centre of Intex) 1st Floor shop no.22, Mugal Canal, Karnal.
3. Intex Technologies Ltd., D-18-2, Okhla Industrial area Phase-11, New Delhi-112020 through its Managing Director.
………… Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.
Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.
Present:- Sh. Sanjiv Mandhan Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one phone make IntexM-6, bearing IMEI no.9114305-4235208, manufactured by opposite party no.3, vide invoice no.736 dated 13.8.2015. The said mobile phone was carrying warranty for one year. From the very beginning there was problem of battery backup and software. He approached opposite party no.2 who used to keep the mobile phone for 10-15 days and then return the same by saying that the same was repaired and would not give any kind of problem, but the problem could not be repaired . Rather the functioning became auto off and on. Most of the time the mobile phone remained with the opposite party no.2 and he could not use the same for the purpose for which it was purchased. Then, he approached the opposite parties no.1 to 3 for replacement, as the same was having manufacturing defect, but they flatly refused to do so. Such acts and conduct of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service which caused him mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
3. Only a bill/invoice regarding purchase of the mobile set for Rs.6800/- has been filed by the complainant. No job sheet has been produced, which may indicate that the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 and complained about the defects in his mobile phone. Neither the complainant has alleged nor there is any document, which may show that the complainant ever lodged complaint regarding defects in the mobile set to any of the opposite parties in writing on in toll free number. Under such circumstances, mere allegations made by the complainant regarding defects in the mobile are not sufficient to establish prime-facie any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Under such facts and circumstances, it would not be justified to admit the complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 23.05.2016
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Anil Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.