DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 94 of 16.4.2007<br /> Decided on : 31.8.2007 <br /> <br /> Balvir Singh S/o Sh. Pyara Singh, R/o Near BDO Block, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.M/s. Friends Telecom & Photostate, Opp. Civil Lines, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner Sandeep SinghS/o Dev Singh.<br /> 2.Neuron Technologies, Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda through its Office Incharge/Manager.<br /> 3.Nokia Care, HCL Infinet Ltd., SCO No. 2453-54, Sector 22-C, Ground Floor, Chandigarh-160022 through its Office Incharge/Manager.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Resham Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. G.S. Bhasin, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2<br /> Sh. Prem Pal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.3<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Mobile Handset make Nokia 2310 having IMEI No. 353636013030204 was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,250/- vide bill No. 2328 dated 12.12.2006. Opposite party No.2 is the authorised service centre of Nokia mobile handsets and is representative of opposite party No.3. Before sale, tall claims were made by opposite party No.1 about the set. Warranty of one year on the set was given. In the month of February, 2007, handset stopped functioning. Its Ringer was not working properly. Set used to go auto restart in case of playing Radio. Opposite party No.1 was approached. On its advice, opposite party No. 2 was contacted on 21.2.2007. Opposite party No. 2 instructed him to leave the set for repair. Accordingly, set was handed over vide Job Sheet No. 068343506/070221/33. After a few days, opposite party No.2 delivered the set saying that defect was removed. Handset again became defective with the same problem. It was brought to opposite party No.2 and was deposited with it vide Job Sheet No. 068343506/070306/33 for repair and replacement. He approached opposite party No.2 after a week. He was told that defect was not yet cured and he should come after some days. He visited opposite party No.2 two/three times, but no satisfactory reply was given. Ultimately, opposite party No. 2 handed over the mobile set stating that it was repaired. Complainant came to know that instead of repairing the handset or providing new one, second hand set was given to him having different IMEI No. 35974500110301 without knowledge and consent. Opposite party No.2 also mentioned this IMEI No. on the copy of the bill under its stamp and signature. He assails this act as illegal and against facts and law. Replaced set is not working properly. Opposite party No.2 was approached, but it failed to pay any heed to his request. Complainant alleges that he is undergoing mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to replace the defective handset with the new one; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No.1 filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaint is false and vexatious and is bad for mis-joinder of party. It admits that it had sold handset model 2310 with IMEI No. 353636013030204 on 12.12.2006. Opposite party No.2 is the authorised service centre of Nokia India Ltd. Limited warranty of 12 months, if any, is given by the manufacturing company only. It denies that second hand set was given to the complainant by opposite party No.2. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 3. Opposite party No.2 filed separate reply of the complaint stating that complaint is not maintainable; it is false and vexatious and it is bad for mis-joinder of party. It admits that it is the service centre of Nokia India Ltd. Complainant had approached it on 21.2.2007 alongwith handset with reported fault of restart. It was a minor problem which was rectified on the same day free of cost. On 6.3.2007, complainant had again approached it with reported fault of restart. Being minor problem, it was rectified on the same day. It denies that second hand set in place of set of the complainant was delivered to him. It denies deficiency in service and remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Reply of the complaint filed by opposite party No.3 is to the effect that it is false and frivolous and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. It is always willing to perform its obligations under the terms of warranty. It is ready to redress the grievances of the complainant to his satisfaction. It is not known as to whether the set is defective or not. False complaint has been filed to harass it. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Balvir Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2, photocopy of Cash Memo (Ex.C.3) & photocopies of Service Job Sheets (Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5).<br /> 6. On behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Munish Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party No.1 and Swadesh Goyal, Proprietor of opposite party No.2 respectively. Opposite party No.3 did not lead any evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the complainant and opposite party No.2.<br /> 8. Onus to prove version in the complaint is upon the complainant. For that cogent and convincing evidence is required. Alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be concluded on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.<br /> 9. Principal grouse of the complainant is that another handset having IMEI No. 35974500110301 was given to him in place of his mobile handset No. IMEI 353636013030204 by opposite party No. 2 and IMEI no. of the replaced handset has been mentioned on the original cash memo dated 12.12.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.3. To substantiate it, he is relying upon his affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 and copies of the job sheets dated 21.2.2007 and 6.3.2007 Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.5 respectively. Opposite party No.2 has specifically denied the delivery of swap handset or any other set in place of set of the complainant. Similarly, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have denied that entry of another handset was made on the cash memo. Stance of opposite party No. 2 is that on both the occasions i.e. 21.2.2007 and 6.3.2007 complainant had approached it with the handset with reported fault of restart which was a minor problem which was rectified and handset was given. One thing is clear from the copies of the job sheets Ex.C.4 and Ex.C.5 that handset purchased by the complainant was taken by him to opposite party No. 2. Complainant has not explained as to what compelled opposite party No.2 to make entry of another handset on the cash memo. He has not told the name of the person who according to him, has made this entry on the cash memo and on which day. In case, another set was given to the complainant as has been alleged by him in para No. 8 of the complaint and another IMEI no. was entered on the cash memo, he must have raised hue and cry at that time. It does not sound to reason that a person would accept another product with folded hands. Story of the complainant does not appeal to logic at all. In case, IMEI no. was entered by some official of opposite party No.2, complainant could name him and get his handwriting compared with the handwriting on the bill, copy of which is Ex.C.3. No specific date of delivery of another handset has been mentioned in the complaint. In case, some other handset was given, complainant could not keep mum till the date of filing the complaint. His version in the affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2 is amply rebutted with the affidavits Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 of S/Sh. Munish Kumar and Swadesh Goyal respectively. Had some official of opposite party No.2 entered another IMEI No. as alleged by the complainant, complainant was expected to come to know about it and he could raise protest. Facts and circumstances clearly show that there is something else behind the story which has been concealed by him for the reasons best known to him. As per evidence on the record, opposite parties have rendered requisite service to the complainant for getting his purchased handset rectified. Both the job sheets prepared after receiving original handset bear the original no. of the handset of the complainant. Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. In the result, complaint being meritless is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 31.8.2007 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg'<br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />