BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.11/17.
Date of instt.: 06.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2017.
Rakesh Kumar Garg s/o Shri Parshottam Dass, r/o Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Oppo Mobile India (Head Office), 2nd Floor, Vatika Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon. (company)
- Lavish Communication, Shop No.G-15, Lala Lajpat Rai Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal. (Shopkeeper).
- Syska Gadget Secure, Leehan Retails Pvt. Ltd., 4, SSK Saphhire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, near Symbiosis College, Pune. (Service centre).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for Op No.3.
Ops No.1 and 2 ex parte.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set Oppo F1 Plus 8618630300063415 from Op No.2 vide Invoice No.383 for a sum of Rs.26,000/-. It is alleged that he made the insurance of said mobile set for a sum of Rs.2399/- with through SYSKA i.e. Ops No.1 & 2, which is valid for one year i.e. 3.8.2016 to 3.8.2017. It is further alleged that after about four months, the said mobile set was physically damaged in an accident and on 31.12.2016, he deposited his handset with Op No.3 vide acknowledgment dt. 31.12.2016. It is further alleged that he visited the Ops for removal of defects, but Ops failed to remove the problems of mobile in question and also failed to handover the mobile set. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte vide order dt. 27.02.2017. Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus-standi; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; mis-joinder & non-joinder; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and true facts are that the complainant intimated about this incident on 26.10.2016 and Op provide the CIN No.1610267866 to customer and thereafter the estimate prepared by M/s B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. and the payment was made for repair to M/s B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. through RTGS No. ICICR52017010400784096 dt. 26.12.2016 against claim identification No. 1610267866. On merits, all the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C2, Mark C-1 to C-4 and closed evidence on 11.07.2017. On the other hand, Op No.3 failed to produce any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the Op No.3 was closed by Court order vide order dt. 29.09.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant has purchased a mobile set make Oppo F1 Plus from Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.26,000/- vide Invoice No.383 dt. 03.08.2016 Mark C-1. It is also clear that the complainant got insured his said mobile set for a sum of Rs.2,399/- vide Ex.C2. According to the allegations of the complainant, after a lapse of about four months, the said mobile set was damaged in a roadside accident and the complainant deposited the handset with Op No.3 on 31.12.2016 and this fact is clear from the acknowledgment dt. 31.12.2016 produced on the file by the complainant as Mark C-2. On the other hand, according to Op No.3 that the complainant had intimated about the incident on 26.10.2016 and the Op No.3 provided the CIN No.1610267866 to the customer. It is further contended by the Op No.3 that the estimate was prepared by M/s B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. and Op No.3 made payment for repair to M/s B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd. through RTGS No. ICICR52017010400784096 dt. 26.12.2016 against claim identification No. 1610267866. According to the document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant, the CIN number and date are the same, as stated by Op No.3 and the payment regarding the said incident has been made by the Op No.3. The complainant did not allege any incident of dt. 26.10.2016 in his entire complaint, rather the complainant alleged in his complaint about the incident, which took place about four months after the purchase of the mobile set in question. The mobile set in question was purchased on 03.8.2016, therefore, the incident might had taken place in the month of December 2016. The complainant alleged that he had deposited his mobile set with the Ops on 31.12.2016 and stated that this fact is clear from Mark C-2. On perusal of Mark C-2, it is clear that the said claim form was regarding the loss on 26.10.2016. As already stated above, for the damage of the mobile set in question in the incident of 26.10.2016, the Op has already made the payment. The incident of 26.10.2016 was took place after about 2¾ months from the date of purchase of mobile set in question i.e. 03.8.2016, whereas, the complainant alleged the incident in the present complaint after about four months from the purchase of mobile set in question. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove on the file about the incident as alleged in his complaint and the complainant has not alleged in his complaint about the incident of dt. 26.10.2016. Moreover, regarding the incident dt. 26.10.2016, the Op No.3 has made the payment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the Ops.
6. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.31.10.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Ops No.1 and 2 ex parte.
Shri Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for Op No.3.
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.
Dated:31.10.2017. Member Presiding Member.
