Haryana

Jind

CC/15/78

Sonu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Super Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Naresh Millari

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 72 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 1.6.2015
   Date of final order: 6.5.2016 

Sonu @ Harmit Singh s/o Sh. Joginder Singh r/o H.No. 258/17 Gujran Mohalla, Jind, District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Super Telecom Gohana road, opposite bus stand, Jind, District Jind.
HTC Care Service Centre, Swastic Systems, shop No.7 Bapu Asha Ram Complex Chottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana.
HTC India Pvt. Ltd. Sector 30 Gurgaon (Haryana).
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:   None for  complainant.
               None for  opposite party No.1. 
            Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte.
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased HTC Desire 616 Dual Sim mobile set for a sum of Rs.16,000/- vide bill No.358 dated 10.10.2014 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is service provider. It is alleged that after some days the above said mobile set was having manufacturing defect and was not 
            Sonu Vs. M/s Super Telecom etc.
                    …2…
working properly. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and told about the defect of the mobile. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to contact the opposite party No.2 for removing the defect of the mobile set who is the service provider. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 for removing the defect of mobile set. The opposite party No.2 removed the defect  of the mobile set and returned the same to the complainant on 20.5.2015. Again the mobile was giving the problem and he visited the opposite party No.2 for removing the defect of mobile set but the defect was not removed by the opposite party No.2. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared, the opposite party No.2 has stated that  the mobile of the complainant was checked and found  the crack near power key and hand set is in dead condition. The mobile set is out of warranty and mobile set is physically damaged. After the purchase of mobile set, the complainant used it almost six months and it proves that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile set.  All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 

            Sonu Vs. M/s Super Telecom etc.
                    …3…
3.    Opposite parties No.1 and 3 have contended that the device was internally damaged (as per warranty policy, if the device is internally damaged then customer needs to pay the repair charges) and complainant agreed to send the device for repair. The device is not in warranty due to liquid logged in the device. The defect occurred only due to wrong handling the mobile set by the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint is prayed for.   
4.    In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of   cash memo Ex. C-2, copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and copy of Aadharr card Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has stated on 17.12.2015 that he does not want to lead any evidence in this case. 
5.    Today the case is fixed for arguments but none has appeared on behalf of complainant as well as opposite party No.1. We deciding this case on merit instead of dismissed for want of prosecution. 
6.    We have gone through the  job sheet Ex. C-3 which clearly shows  that the warranty of the device will get void, in case it is liquid logged, physical damaged or having unauthorized repair then the mobile phone  is out of warranty. The complainant has used the mobile for 6 months without any fault. From the perusal of the record the complainant has also failed to produce  any  document or expert report of any Engineer in evidence  that the mobile is  having manufacturing defect. The complainant has not proved his case that the mobile is having any manufacturing defect. We are of the firm view that it is the 
            Sonu Vs. M/s Super Telecom etc.
                    …4…
duty of the complainant to prove  his case. In the present complaint the complainant failed to prove that whether the mobile set in question is water lodged or not. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not proved. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 6.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                Sonu Vs. M/s Super Telecom etc.
                    

Present:   None for  complainant.
               None for  opposite party No.1. 
           Opposite parties No.2 &3 already ex-parte.

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  6.5.2016