DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 68/2018

Date of Institution   : 07.06.2018

Date of Decision    : 27.08.2019

 

Prem Singh aged about 26 years son of Satnam Singh resident of Village & Post Office Dhaula, Tehsil Tapa Mandi, Distt. Barnala-148108 (Punjab).    

                  …Complainant

Versus

1. Oppo Mobiles Head Office, 2nd Floor, Block 1, Vatika Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, Pin Code-122018, Ph No. 1800-103-2777, through its prop./Authorized Signatory.

2. Boshion Service Center, Upper Ground Floor, Brice Plaza, K.C. Road, Barnala, Punjab, Ph. No. 01679235901, through its prop. Authorized Signatory Pin Code-148101. 

3. Om Traders, Near Dr. Amar Nath, Handiaya-148107, through its prop./Authorized Signatory.    

             …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vinod Kumar counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Sh. K.R. Goyal counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Prem Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against Oppo Mobile Head Office through its prop./authorized signatory and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile of Oppo Company Model A-57 having its IMEI numbers 865165037736274 & 865165037736266 with its complete accessory and one year warranty from opposite party No. 3 on 12.10.2017 by paying an amount of Rs. 15,000/- in cash vide invoice No. 201. It is further alleged that it was assured that any type of problem if occurs then opposite parties will cover all risks for the next one year. 

3. The allegation of the complainant is that in the month of April 2018 it came to the knowledge of the complainant from the opposite party No. 2 that the said handset was already used and its warranty has been already started before the date of purchase and as per record of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 its warranty has been started from 25.9.2017. Thereafter, the complainant approached to the opposite party No. 3 and told the whole story, but the opposite party No. 3 flatly refused to accept his fault and even misbehaved with the complainant by using bad language. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) To refund the amount of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of purchase till realization. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.   

4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, act and conduct of complainant etc. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the opposite party No. 3 working as dealer of answering opposite parties and it is the opposite party No. 3 who is concerned with the sales to consumers directly and whenever any handset is sold and is activated, its entry comes in the NES software of opposite party No. 1 and accordingly as per activation report of opposite party No. 1 said alleged IMEI number of model was activated on 25.9.2017. But in the present complaint the complainant has mentioned that he has purchased the above said mobile on 12.10.2017 against invoice No. 201, so it is abundantly clear that complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. It is further submitted that after 6 months of purchase of mobile and without any fault he approached the Service Center and came to know that it has been sold before the date of purchase of the complainant and warranty as started from 25.9.2017. It is not possible that complainant purchased a second hand mobile and all of a sudden he approached the Service Center without any fault in the device. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

6. The opposite party No. 3 filed written version in which it is admitted that the complainant purchased the alleged mobile set, but it is denied that the complainant purchased the alleged mobile on 12.10.2017, rather the same was purchased on 24.9.2017 vide Bill No. 110 dated 24.9.2017 on credit basis of Rs. 15,000/-. It is further submitted that the complainant filed wrong affidavit and copy of bill placed on record is false and fabricated. The other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

7. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties, in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

8. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job card Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 at the time of filing written version tendered into evidence affidavit of Lakshita Authorized Signatory Ex.O.P1.2/1, certified true copy of resolution Ex.O.P1.2/2, copy of activation report Ex.O.P1.2/3.

10. The opposite party No. 3 at the time of filing written version also tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Ex.O.P3/1, copy of bill dated 24.9.2017 Ex.O.P3/2, copy of Ledger Account of GST Retail Sale Ex.O.P3/3. 

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the parties have also been gone through.

12. It is the specific case of the complainant that he has purchased the above said mobile set on 12.10.2017 from the opposite party No. 3 for an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant further submitted that in the month of April 2018 he came to know from the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Service Center that the said handset was already used and its warranty has been already started before the date of its purchase and as per record its warranty has been started from 25.9.2017. It is important to mention here that the complainant has approached the opposite party No. 2 (Service Center) without alleging any defect in the mobile set and in the present complaint nothing has been mentioned that the alleged mobile set is having any defect. We are unable to understand that after almost six months the complainant has approached/met the opposite party No. 2 without any defect/problem in the mobile set. 

13. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 3 specifically submitted that the complainant has purchased the above said mobile set on 24.9.2017 instead of 12.10.2017 and the copy of bill placed on record by the complainant Ex.C-2 is false and fabricated. Even, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their written version have submitted that the alleged mobile set was activated on 25.9.2017 then how the complainant could purchase the above said mobile set on 12.10.2017 and how it is possible that after six months of purchase the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 (Service Center) without any fault. The opposite parties have alleged that the complainant has concocted a false story.

14. Further, the complainant has placed on record copy of job card Ex.C-3, in which the purchasing date is mentioned as 25.09.2017 with IMEI No. 865165037736274, which shows that the complainant has purchased the alleged mobile set on 25.9.2017. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on record copy of activation report Ex.O.P1.2/3 in which the activation dated is mentioned as 25.09.2017 on 16:36:32, so the Ex.O.P1.2/3 shows that the mobile set is activated on 25.9.2017. Even, the opposite party No. 3 alleged that the complainant purchased the above said mobile set on 24.9.2017 vide bill Ex.O.P3/2, whereas the complainant stated that he has purchased the mobile set on 12.10.2017 vide bill Ex.C-2.

15. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in the present complaint complicated questions of facts are involved and further we are of the opinion that the present complaint involves "intricate issues", which require a detailed and extensive evidence and the same cannot be tried and adjudicated upon in such type of proceedings. We also also of the view that issue involved in the present complaint is quite complicated, for which an elaborate evidence is needed, so the Civil Court is competent enough to tackle such type of issues and in our jurisdiction it is not possible to decide such a complicated matter.  

We are also well equipped with a few judgments:-

Our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (S.C) & (N.C) Consumer Law Cases (1996-2005), in case titled The Supreme Chemical Industries and others Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. and others decided on 29.5.1997 has held, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 and 21- Complicated questions of fact-The dispute and issues raised in the complaint involve intricate issues which require extensive evidence- The case involves complicated questions of fact which cannot be tried and adjudicated in the time-bound proceedings under the Act- Complaint dismissed without trial and complainants to seek their remedies in appropriate Civil or appropriate Authorities and Tribunals. 

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 2002 (2) CPC Page 658 in case titled Synco Industries Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors. has held, Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 23 &3- Jurisdiction- Complaint filed against Bank for reducing loan facility- Huge amount of Rs. 15,60,00,000/- as compensation and cost claimed- Complaint was dismissed by National Commission as complicated issues could not be decided under C.P. Act- Order of National Commission based on good reason- Civil Court is competent to tackle such issues- Appeal dismissed with costs.

Our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, 2008 (1) CPC Page 69 in case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr. Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 21 (b)- Summary Jurisdiction- Complicated questions- Huge amount was claimed by the complainant which required voluminous evidence and interpretation of legal provision- Complicated issues cannot be adjudicated in summary procedure under C.P. Act- Complaint dismissed- Complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy in civil court. 

16. So, after going through the nature of the controversies to be proved in the present case, we are of the opinion that the matter referred to above is required to be proved by leading detailed evidence by both the parties and not in summary procedure.  Therefore, it would be desirable that this case is not to be dealt with by this Forum and could be relegated to the Civil Court.

17. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. However, the time spent by the complainant from the date of filing of the present complaint till the date of this order will not be counted for the purpose of limitation. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

       27th Day of August, 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member