BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.69/2018.
Date of instt.:26.03.2018.
Date of Decision:24.01.2019.
Somt Dutt Sharma s/o Shri Dharampal Sharma, r/o Chiaranjiv Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Oppo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., F-16, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
- M/s Bharti Communication, Shop No.119, Padma City Mall, Kaithal.
- Pace Tel System Pvt. Ltd., 18-A/10, Ground Floor, Chotu Ram Chowk, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
.……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Ashok Gautam, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh Dhull, Adv. for the OPs No.1 & 3.
OP No.2 ex parte.
ORDER
(Jagmal Singh, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986; with the averments that he purchased a mobile bearing Model No.OPPO FiS Gray IMEI No.863497036175754 from OP No.2 for Rs.19,000/- vide bill no.70 dt. 14.3.2017 with one year guarantee/warranty. The said mobile set is manufactured by respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is authorized service centre of respondents No.1 & 2. The said mobile was stopped working properly due to problem of switch off and signal jumping in the same. He visited the respondent No.2, who asked him to go to respondent No.3 and he visited respondent No.3 and they kept the same with them and issued job card. After sometime, he visited respondent No.3 for taking the mobile set, then respondent No.3 told that they have removed the defect of mobile and it will work properly. But after two days, same problem was again procured. He again visited the respondent No.3 for the defect in mobile, who denied the issue of job card and said rudely that he should go to respondent No.2. Then, he visited the respondent No.2 who refused to replace the same or to return the price and asked that the mobile has become out of warranty. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2 & Mark C1.
2. On notice OPs No.1 & 3 appeared, whereas, no one appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and as such, OP No.2 was opted to be proceeded against ex parte.
The OPs No.1 & 3 filed their reply taking preliminary objections such as maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is submitted that there is not problem in the set; that there is a problem of net working signal jumping with Jio Net Work due to area of net work and there is no tower in the area where the complainant is residing and use the above said mobile set; that the mobile handset is OK. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same. In evidence, the OPs No.1 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A. The Ops No.2 & 3 has tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
3. 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.
4. According to the complainant, he had purchased the mobile in question from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- vide bill Ex.C-1. The complainant has come with the plea that the mobile in question stopped working properly due to problem of switch off and signal jumping in the same. On the asking of OP No.2, the complainant visited the OP No.3, who kept the mobile set with them and issued job card. After sometime, the complainant visited OP No.3 and took the mobile set where he told by the Op No.3 that the defect has been removed and the mobile will work properly in future. But after two days, same problem again occurred, therefore, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 for the defect in mobile, who denied to issue any job sheet and said rudely that he should go to OP No.2. Then, the complainant visited the OP No.2, who also refused to replace the same or to return the price of the mobile and asked that the mobile has become out of warranty. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental strain and agony.
5. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 3 have come with the plea that there is no problem in the mobile set, rather there is a problem of networking signal jumping with Jio Network. There is no tower in the area where the complainant is residing and use the above said mobile set and the mobile handset is OK. When the complainant visited the OP No.3, then the latest version was updated in the mobile phone upto the satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from job-sheets Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
6. In the column “Remark” of job-sheets Ex.C2, Ex.R2, Ex.R4 and Ex.R5, it has been mentioned that “Signal jumping with JIO network and Customer not using handset protective case and Screen guard”. Further, in the Column “Problem Description (As per Customer)” of job-sheets Mark C1, Ex.R1 and Ex.R3, it has been clearly mentioned that “Network Problem, Signal jumping With JIO network”. In these job-sheets, the complainant has affixed his signature underneath. Except these documents, there is nothing on the case file to show that there was any problem in the mobile handset in question as the complainant has not produced any other document on the case file, vide which, it can be said that the mobile set was having any problem/defect. The complainant has not produced any evidence, vide which, it can be proved that the complainant has ever met the service centre after the above said job-sheets Ex.C2 and Mark C1 for any problem in the mobile set in question. The complainant has failed to prove that the mobile set in question has any defect what to talk about manufacturing defect. Therefore, it is clear that the mobile phone was having no manufacturing defect and even no complaint ‘except the above said problem duly solved by the service centre, has ever been lodged by the complainant, therefore, in our view, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the Ops, hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal.
7. In view of our discussion the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.24.01.2019. (Jagmal Singh) President
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Member.
Present: Shri Ashok Gautam, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Kuldeep Singh Dhull, Adv. for the OPs No.1 & 3.
OP No.2 ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:24.1.2019. Member. Member President.
