Haryana

StateCommission

A/682/2015

PRASHANT - Complainant(s)

Versus

NOKIA CARE CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.682 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 18.08.2015

Date of Decision: 16.11.2015

 

Prashant aged about 24 years son of Shri Lal Singh Resident of village, Gobindpura, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Nokia Care Centre, Santpura Gurudwara Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Prop./Manager.
2. The care Manager, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., SP Infotech Industrial Plot # 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurgaon.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the appellant-complainant that he purchased Nokia Lumia 520 from Samath Lifestyle Retailing Unit-112, FF, Great India Place Mall, Sector 38 A Noida (UP) on 31.07.2013 for Rs.9900/-. O.P. assured that mobile would provide best service to him. In the month of April, 2014 telephone started giving trouble and he took the same to O.P.-respondent No.1 and was repaired on 10.05.2014. The defect again re-occurred on 12.05.2014.  There was manufacturing defect and O.Ps. be directed to replace the same.

2.      O.Ps. were proceeded ex parte when nobody has appeared on their behalf after service.

3.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.07.2015 for want of territorial jurisdiction.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that phone was got repaired from O.P.No.1 at Yamuna Nagar. It is authorized service centre of O.P.No.2.  In this way District Forum, Yamuna Nagar was having jurisdiction to try this dispute. He placed reliance on the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh and anr. 2011 (2) CLT 57 and opinion of Orissa State Commission, Cuttack expressed in  Sishir Kumar Nayak Vs. wing store Electronics 1993 (2) CPJ 855. 

7.      This argument is of no avail.   Complainant has miserably failed to show that phone was ever got repaired from O.P.No.1.  On the basis of oral version it cannot be presumed that he availed the services of O.P.No.1 or it is authorized service centre of O.P.No.2.  He purchased this telephone from Noida so no cause of action accrued to him at Yamuna Nagar.  Learned District Forum rightly dismissed his complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction.  The appellant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because they are based on altogether different facts.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

November 16th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.