DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 34 of 29.1.2008<br /> Decided on : 16.4.2008 <br /> <br /> Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Ishar Singh, R/o Village Mannwala, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Nokia India Ltd., Raddison Hotel, Commercial Palaza, N.H. Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110 037.<br /> 2.Neuron Technologies, Near Old Bus Stand, Opp. Hanuman Chowk, G.T.Road, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant had purchased mobile handset make Nokia 6681 having IMEI No. 351886013881203 from M/s. Jindal Communications, Dabwali for a consideration of Rs. 10,700/- vide bill No. 981 dated 13.3.2007. One year warranty was given on the mobile handset. From the very beginning, the Battery of the set was creating problems. With full charging, it was functioning only for 2/3 hours. Thereafter, it had to be re-charged time and again. He approached opposite party No. 2 and reported the defect on 18.7.2007. He was advised to leave the handset and come on the next day to collect it. Accordingly, handset was delivered to opposite party No. 2 i.e. authorised service centre of opposite party No. 1 vide Job Sheet No. 068343506/070718/61 dated 18.7.2007. On 19.7.2007, handset was collected by him. Still battery was not functioning properly. It was becoming empty very soon. He was approaching the officials of opposite party No. 2 many a times who used to rectify the defect. Despite this, Battery continued giving problem. Request was made to opposite party No. 2 to replace the mobile handset with a new one as there is some manufacturing defect in the Battery, but to no effect. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to replace the defective battery of the handset with a new handset, pay Rs.10,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party No. 2 which was served. No-one appeared on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte. Sh. Sukhdev Mittal was appearing as counsel on behalf of opposite party No.1. On 7.4.2008, he made statement pleading no instructions to appear on its behalf. He further stated that he has informed opposite party No. 1 to appear before this Forum and file reply, but no-one has turned up. Since, no-one was representing opposite party No.1, it has also been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 3. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), affidavits (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3) of S/Sh. Krishan Kumar and Surjit Singh respectively, photocopy of Cash/Credit Memo (Ex.C.4) and photocopy of Service Job Sheet (Ex.C.5).<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 5. In order to prove the purchase of the mobile handset, complainant is relying upon Cash/Credit Memo, copy of which is Ex.C.4. A perusal of this document reveals that mobile handset Nokia 6681 was purchased by him from M/s. Jindal Communications, Mandi Dabwali for a consideration of Rs.10,700/- on 13.3.2007. It was taken to opposite party No. 2 on 18.7.2007 with reported fault “Charging/battery: Back up battery empty. Comments were Battery Empty Show”. Complainant has also placed on record his affidavit and the affidavits of Krishan Kumar and Surjit Singh in order to prove that battery was creating problems, defect could not be removed and that despite requests mobile handset has not been replaced. <br /> 6. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is required to establish it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Case of the complainant cannot be said to be proved merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Complainant alleges that one year guarantee on the mobile handset was given. A perusal of Ex.C.4 reveals that limitations of warranty are on its backside. Complainant has withheld the back portion of the Cash Credit Memo. Terms and conditions of warranty are not known. Limitations of warranty which as per note given on the front portion of the Cash Memo could show as to whether any defect in the battery was sufficient to replace the mobile handset or not or warranty is also with regard to the defect in the battery. Since complainant has withheld the best evidence, adverse inference is drawn against him to the effect that there may be no warranty regarding the battery. Another aspect of the matter also gives jolt to the story of the complainant. Complainant is alleging defect in the battery of the mobile handset. He was required to prove that defect in the battery is such which is manufacturing one and it is not curable. For that expert evidence was required. No expert has been examined to prove it. Complainant was required to prove that if battery is full charged, it can function more than 2/3 hours. Moreover, the functioning of the battery depends upon the use of the mobile handset. If mobile handset is used more, the battery would function less and it would require early re-charging. Evidence to clarify these points is lacking.<br /> 7. In the light of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint is meritless and as such, it is dismissed. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 16.4.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />