Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/164/2015

Gaurav Sharma S/o Rameshwar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mehandiratta Music World - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 164 of 2015

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 12.05.2015.

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 17.03.2016.

Gaurav Sharma aged about 22 years son of Sh. Rameshwar Sharma, resident of H. No. 1117, Chorlion Street Railway Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.     

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Mehandiratta Music World, 4 C, Mela Street, Jagadhri, Mob.
2. Karbonn mobile Services Centre Shop No. 9, Ishar Complex, near  Corporation Bank. Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Jayana Marketing & Associated D-170, Okhala Industrial Area, Face-1, New Delhi.

 

                                                                                               …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: None for complainant.

              Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for respondentsNo.2 & 3.

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 12.8.2015

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Gaurav Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to supply new mobile set make Karbonn Titanium Octane Plus Model to the complainant in place of defective mobile in question  or in the alternative to pay the cost of aforesaid mobile phone and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a Karbonn Mobile Model Titanium Octane Plus  bearing IMEI No. 911352900389035 for a value of Rs. 12000/- vide cash Bill No. 3756 dated 29.1.2015 from the Op No.1 manufactured by Op No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. At the time of purchase of aforesaid mobile set, the Op No.1 assured that the mobile is of best reputed company and it has 16 GB Internal Memory and it will not trouble of any kind whatsoever in future and also gave one year warranty/guarantee. After a few days,  complainant came to know that it has only 8 GB internal memory, the complainant again contacted the OP No.1 and requested to remove the defect because the same is under guarantee/warranty period but OP No.1 advised to him to go to Karbonn Service Centre i.e. OP No.2. The complainant went to OP No.2 but they did not give any satisfactory reply and refused to change the mobile. Hence this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.2 &3  appeared but Op No.1 failed to appear, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.8.2015 whereas OP No.2 & 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, estopped by his own act and conduct, there is no deficiency in service and on merit it has been mentioned that after installation of software and operating system in the mobile phone, consumed the storage capacity of the Mobile Phone and then the set shows its balance storage capacity, which is correct with the mobile phone of the complainant. Furthermore, the mobile phone in question is working correctly and the complainant is enjoying its facility, by using the same. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service in the terms of provision contain in Consumer Protection Act.

4.                     Complainant failed to lead any evidence, hence evidence of complainant was closed by court order on 18.2.2016 whereas counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 made a statement that he did not want to file any documents and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.   

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased mobile phone make Karbonn Model Titanium Octane Plus from OP No.1 vide bill No 3756 dated 29.01.2015 for a sum of Rs. 12000/-.

 7.                    The only plea of the of the complainant is that the mobile set in question is having 8 GB internal memory only whereas on its box the memory of mobile has been depicted 16 GB.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 hotly argued that after installation of software and operating system in the mobile phone hand sets, consumed the storage capacity of the mobile phone and then the sets shows its balance storage capacity, which is correct with the mobile phone hand sets of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs No. 2 & 3 further argued that the mobile phone in question is working correctly and the complainant is enjoying its facility by using the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                     After hearing the counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 and perusal of the case file, we are of the considered view that the version of the complainant is not tenable as the case of the complainant is only for specification of internal memory and there is no record or expert opinion to prove that the internal memory of the mobile set is 8 GB and on the box of mobile set the same has been shown as 16 GB. So, without any documentary evidence we are unable to hold that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, we have option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant being devoid of any merit.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint 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 in open court. 17.03.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER