BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.294/17.
Date of instt.:09.11.2017.
Date of Decision:21.12.2018.
Sony Kumar @ Sohani Ram s/o Shri Ram Niwas, r/o VPO Sisla-Sismor, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Rising Star Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.M-28, Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase-II, High Tech SEZ, DTA Area, Sriperumbudur, Taluk, Kancheepuram-602106, Tamil Nadu.
- HMD Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Urban Square Complex No.510, 5th Floor, Tower-C, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-62, Gurgaon.
- Jaya Maa Mobile Repair, Opp. Old DC Residence Karnal Road, Kaithal.
- Krishna Mobile, Shop No.25, Lala Lajpat Market, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
OPs ex parte.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile make Nokia 3 black DS from OP No.4 for Rs.9500/- vide Invoice No.220 dt. 05.9.2017 with one year warranty. It is further alleged that on 19.9.2017, the said mobile occurred a problem i.e. suddenly went dead and was not getting switch on after trying several times. It is further alleged that he handed over the mobile to OP No.4 but the said problem cannot be removed and returned the mobile and told him to visit to OP No.3 for service purpose. It is further alleged that the mobile was given to OP No.3 on 20.9.2017 but after 27 days on 17.10.2017, the OP No.3 refused to repair the same with remarks IMEI sticker not available in this handset due to rejected by company for repair because its tempered cover by company. It is further alleged that he suffered great hardship i.e. physical, mental harassment due to negative attitude of Ops as since the date he purchased the mobile, the mobile set went dead and is not getting switch on after several times. This way, the Ops are deficient. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2 despite services through separate registered posts and as such, the OPs No.1 & 2 opted to be proceeded against ex parte vide orders dt. 21.12.2017 & 12.11.2018 respectively. Shri Vinay Garg, Rep. for OP No.3 and Shri Mahesh Bansal, Rep. for OP No.4 appeared on 21.12.2017, but on 25.9.2018, no one appeared on behalf of Ops No.3 & 4 and as such, they were opted to be proceeded against ex parte on that date.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Mark CA, Mark CB and closed evidence on 04.12.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.
5. As per Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased the mobile handset from OP No.4 on 05.09.2017. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile phone went out of order within a short period of its purchase and due to this the same was delivered to OP No.3 for necessary repairs vide Mark CA (Job sheet) but vide Ex.C2 dated 17.10.2017 the handset was returned to the complainant unrepaired with remarks that IMEI sticker not available in this handset due to rejected by company for repair because its tempered cover by company despite the fact that the problem in the handset occurred within warranty period. This document is duly signed by the complainant which shows that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the IMEI sticker was not available on the handset at the time of depositing the same with service centre/OP No.3 for repair work. Undoubtedly the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone to take undue advantage thereof. In the present case, when the IMEI sticker on the handset showing its number is missing in that eventuality the identity of the product in question is not proved.
6. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the company has rightly refused to repair the handset in question; therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.12.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
OPs ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.12.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
