Haryana

Panchkula

CC/603/2019

VIJAY SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S DISHU MOBILES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	603 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	09.01.2023

 

 

Vijay Singh, resident of House No.92, Sector-20, Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Dishu Mobiles, SCO, No.45, Canam Plaza, Shop No.207,      Sector-11, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.

2.     Instant Solution(Service Centre), SCO No.207, 2^nd Floor, Sector- 14, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.

3.     M/s Rising Stars Mobile India Private Limited, Plot No.M-2B,       Sipcat Industrial Park, Phase II, Hi-Tech SEZ, DTA Area, Sriperumbur  Taluk, Kancheepuram-602106(Tamil Nadu) through    its Care Manager.

4.     HMD Mobile India Private Limited, Pioneer Urban Square Complex,     No.510, 5^th Floor, Tower C, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector- 62, Gurugram(Haryana)-122102 thorugh its authorized signatory.

        2^nd Address        

        HMD Mobile India Private Limited, Flat No.820B, 8^th Floor, Naurang House No.21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi- 110001 through its authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   None for the complainant.

                        Defence of OPs No.1 & 2 struck off vide order dated 20.02.2020.

                        OPs No.3 & 4 already ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2020.

                       

ORDER

(Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the present complaint are that  a Nokia  mobile handset model 105, IMEI No.357278087204930 was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 in 2018 for a sum of Rs.11,500/-. The mobile set was having a warranty of one year from its purchase. It is stated that the problem in the display of the said mobile set started appearing within 5 months of its purchase. The OP No.1 was informed accordingly but the official of OP No.1 showed their inability to help the complainant on the ground that it was dealer to sell the product manufactured by OP No.4. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP no.2, who is a service centre of OP No.4, in order to get defective mobile set repaired. The OP No.2 up-dated the mobile software and returned the mobile-set on the same day to the complainant. After few days, the problem again appeared in the mobile set and OP no.2 was again requested, who updated the mobile software and thereupon, mobile set display started working. After a few months, the problem again arose in the display and touch screen of the mobile set and ultimately, the mobile set stopped working. The complainant again visited the OP No.2, who up dated the mobile set software and returned the same to the complainant. It is stated that the problem of touch screen again developed in the hand set but the OP No.2 did not carry out the necessary repairs and returned the handset to him stating that the same had got water logged/locked. It is stated that the complainant has been visiting the OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 but the problem in the handset has not been removed. It is stated that the mobile handset is having manufacturing defects, which cannot be rectified; hence the Ops are duty bound to replace the same with new one within warranty period but Ops have been deficient in not replacing the mobile hand set. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the Ops No.1 & 2 have appeared through Authorized Representative to contest the complaint; but he did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunity. Therefore, the defence of OPs No.1 & 2 was struck off by the Commission, vide order dated 20.02.2020. 

                Notices were issued to the OPs No.3 & 4 through registered post, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.3 & 4; hence, they were deemed to be duly served and thus, due to non appearance of OPs No.3 & 4, they were proceeded ex-parte by the Commission vide its order dated 06.01.2020.

3.             The complainant did not tender the necessary affidavit along with documents in support of his contentions as raised in the complaint despite last opportunity granted vide order dated 31.01.2022, 03.03.2022, 25.05.2022 and 09.08.2022 and ultimately the opportunity for submission of the evidence by the complainant was closed vide order dated 12.09.2022.

4.             The complainant or his authorized representative is not appearing in this case since 03.03.2022; hence, the complaint is disposed of on the basis of record available on the case file.

5.             We have perused the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

6.             The complainant has not tendered his detailed necessary affidavit along with documents i.e. job-sheet etc in support of his contentions as raised in the complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove the allegations leveled by him in the complaint. As per well legal proposition, the complainant cannot draw any benefit out of the weaknesses or/ lacunas of the OP’s case. The complainant has preferred not to submit any documentary evidence in the shape of affidavit, on record, in support of his version. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record in support of the contention of the complainant, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint; hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 09.01.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                      Member                    President

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                            Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini

                                              Member

 

 

 

C.C. No.603 of 2019

 

Present:             None for the complainant.

                        Defence of OPs No.1 & 2 struck off vide order dated 20.02.2020.

                        OPs No.3 & 4 already ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2020.

                       

                                               

                 Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.09.01.2023

 

 

                Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                     Member                          Member                President