Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/624/2012

Babu Ram Sharma s/o Sh.Pushpahas Sharma, - Complainant(s)

Versus

North India Top Company - Opp.Party(s)

Anurag Sharma

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 624 of 2012.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 13.6.2012.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 8.12.2015.

Babu Ram Sharma aged about 33 years son of Sh. Pushpahas Sharma, R/o H. No. 652/1, Shyam Sunder Puri, Near Durga Mandir, Jagadhri.   

                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

North India Top Company Pvt. Ltd. D-18/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                      …Respondent.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Anurag Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                       Sh. Balraj Rana, Advocate, counsel for OP.              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Babu Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to replace the mobile set make Beetel Dual Sim with Qwerty Keypad GD405-Black with new one or in the alternative to pay cost of mobile alongwith compensation as well as cost of proceedings. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the respondent is a manufacturer of Beetel Dual Sim Mobile Phone with Qwerty Keypad-GD405-Black. The complainant placed an order of home delivery with OP for purchasing a new mobile phone and the same was delivered by the OP at the home of complainant at Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1999/- on account of cost of aforesaid mobile phone to the person concerned, who brought the mobile at the house of complainant alongwith bill No. BAR/082011/4574 dated 28.7.2011. The aforesaid mobile phone was found defective from the very beginning as there was no ring facility, charging pin/ nob used to come outside from its place and it was also found by the complainant that the battery of the mobile phone was broken from its side and there was a heavy possibility of mis-happening due to dilapidated condition of the same. After getting the abovesaid mobile phone, the complainant lodged various complaints with the OP vide complaint but on the second complaint only the OP asked to the complainant to send the mobile in question and on their request, the complainant sent his mobile phone to the OP through courier and also sent a sum of Rs. 400/- as demanded by them and thereafter the complainant again asked the OP through complaint regarding the status of phone. Thereafter, after the expiry of 2-3 months, the mobile phone of complainant was received back from the OP without making any repair and this time condition of the mobile phone was worst prior to that. The OP is legally bound to get the said mobile phone replaced with new one or to refund the price thereof to the complainant alongwith interest as well as compensation. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is false, incorrect and baseless. The present complaint is just an afterthought and therefore the said complaint is misconceived and liable to be dismissed with heavy compensatory cost, complaint is not maintainable, without jurisdiction, an abuse of process of this Forum and liable to be dismissed with heavy costs and on merit it has been submitted that the Beetel Mobile Phones Company is the manufacturer and service provider for the product in question. The Beetel Mobile Phones Company is solely bound to provide after sales service to the complainant. OP is in no way responsible in deficiency of service being done on the part of manufacturer or the Brand Area Service Centre. The complainant mislead the Hon’ble Forum claiming that the OP is the manufacturer of the product in question. As per record available with the OP the complainant on 1.9.2011 called OP that Area Service Centre of Beetel Mobile Phones Company is shifted. Hence, it is established that complainant had the knowledge of service centre of the product in question and also had the knowledge that OP is not the actual responsible after sales service provider. On 13.9.2011 OP received the product and sent it service centre for repair with remark to inform customer within 10-15 working days. After repair the product was sent to customer through Blue Dart courier No. Awb No. 13340774252 dated 22.10.2011. On 14.4.2012 customer called in OP’s call centre and reported defects in Battery & Earphone. At the same time the customer was informed by the OP that accessories contains one month manufacturer warranty and asked complainant to get mobile repaired from Brand Service Centre. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had never  lodged any complaint with OP with regard to any fault in mobile in question. It has been specifically denied that OP ever demanded Rs. 400/- from the complainant. It has been further submitted that this Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction as admittedly the office of Op is located at D-18/1, Lkhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     As the complainant as well as OP failed to lead any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 16.11.2015. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant filed his affidavit and documents such as Photo copy of Invoice dated 28.7.2011 of mobile in question Annexure-A and photo copy of courier receipt as Annexure-B  with the complaint in support of his complaint.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     From the perusal of Annexure-A which is copy of bill/cash memo bearing No. BAR/082011/4574 dated 28.7.2011 for Rs. 1999/-, it is evident that the complainant purchased the Beetel Dual SIM mobile Phone with Qwerty Keypad-GD405 520 from the North India Top Compay Pvt. Ltd. D-18/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase New Delhi. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile it was assured by the said seller that they would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the mobile set in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of the mobile set in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further argued that the said mobile set was having problem of ring facility, charging pin/nob of mobile phone, used to come outside from its place and the battery of the mobile phone was broken from its side and was not working properly since beginning. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that these defects were brought into the notice of the opposite party and on asking of the OP, the mobile set was sent to OP through courier but the OP return back the mobile set without making any repairing in it. Lastly prayed that as the defect in mobile in question are a manufacturing defects and the same could not be removed, so, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

7.                     The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant have no weightage as the complainant failed to file any job sheet or report from any expert that the mobile set in question was having any manufacturing defect. The only plea of the complainant is that mobile phone is having defects but no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove this contention. The complainant has also failed to file any warranty card issued by the OP. Further the manufacturer or service provider has not been impleaded as party in this complaint. Merely from filing of purchase bill and courier receipt it cannot be presumed that mobile set was in warranty and was having any manufacturing defect. Besides this, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint of complainant as the complainant has purchased mobile set in question from New Delhi and he failed to produce any documentary evidence that he has availed any service from the Service Centre under the jurisdiction of this Forum.

8.                     In view of the above noted circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the opposite party is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant or this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to decide and try the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open court: 8.12.2015.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.