BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.108of 2015

Date of Instt. 17.03.2015

Date of Decision :03.08.2015

Varun Sharma son of Madan Mohan Sharma R/o Jagdambay Market, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Regd.Office at Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Manager Bunty Mobile World, Shop No.29, Near Baba Lal Dwara Mandir, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar.

3. Managing Director Lawa International Ltd, C-7/227, Second Floor, Sector-7, Rohni, New Delhi.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rahul Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for opposite party No.3.

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone XOLO Mobile Q700i having IMEI No.911310451375217 vide retail invoice No.46763 dated 4.12.2013 from the opposite party No.1 for Rs.10,900/-. The said mobile phone was having some defect and the same was replaced on 5.12.2013 with IMEI No.91131045137 5225, the said endorsement is on the invoice of the opposite party No.1. The said mobile phone developed a fault in its functioning i.e the screen was not working. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1, the said opposite party No.1 referred the matter to the opposite party No.2 being the service agent of the opposite party No.3 and the complainant made the complaint. The incharge/manager has asked Rs.4000/- to pay in order to change the mobile screen. The complainant having no option has agreed to pay the same. After change of mobile screen the set had developed further mis-functioning regarding the speaker and the camera i.e the cover of the speaker was missing while fixing the new mobile screen. The complainant number of times visited the opposite parties No.1 & 2 requesting to repair the phone or to replace the same. The complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2, but none of them is responding to the genuine request of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to change his mobile phone. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the present complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere sheer greed of the mind of the complainant and the same is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant has filed complaint after the expiry of the warranty period, as the unit was purchased on 5.12.2013 and the complaint has been filed in the month of March 2015. There is no defect in the mobile handset what to speak about manufacturing defect. The complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company after the expiry of the warranty period in the month of December 2014 for the first and the last time and the solution was provided to the complainant and after checking the unit it was told to the complainant that the unit is out of warranty so replacement of the screen would be done on chargeable basis and regarding the same a SMS has also been sent to the complainant on 12.12.2014 vide notification No.310000970801 but the complaint being adamant refused to pay the same. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 4.12.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.10,900/- from opposite party No.1. The mobile handset was replaced with new one on next day i.e 5.12.2013 and this fact is evident from the endorsement given on the above said retail invoice Ex.C1. The complainant has himself produced copy of SMS wherein it is mentioned that his XOLO device i.e mobile handset submitted vide notification No.310000970801 is repaired and kindly collect from its service centre at the earliest. This SMS is dated 12.12.2014. It is also case of the opposite party No.3 that complainant approached the service centre in the month of December 2014 for the first and last time and solution was provided to him. According to the complainant, the mobile screen was changed at that time. Counsel for the complainant contended that after changing of the screen, the mobile handset of the complainant developed defects in the camera and speaker. He further contended that these defects were result of changing of the screen. He further contended that the opposite party No.2 wrongly affixed the screen without putting cover of the speaker which gave complication in the camera and the speaker. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that defects in the camera and speaker were result of wrong affixing of screen of mobile handset. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove this fact. The above said defects arose after the expiry of the warranty period. The warranty period expired on 5.12.2014. We have bare affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant in support of his complaint. Simply on the basis of his affidavit and in absence of any expert witness, it can not be held that defect in speaker and camera arose due to wrong affixing of the screen. Since, the above said defects arose after the warranty period, as such, the opposite parties are not liable to repair the mobile handset free of cost. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 contended that it is ready to rectify the above said defects on chargeable basis. So complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

03.08.2015 Member Member President