IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELGUAM.

Dated this 28^th day of July 2016

Complaint No. 535/2015

Present:               1)     Shri.B.V.Gudli, President                                          2)         Smt. S.S. Kadrollimath,     Member

                        3)     Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi,       Member

-***-

Complainant:      Jubeda Phakrusab Koujalagi,

                             Age: 25 years, Occ: Household work,

                             R/o. No. 1446, Vaibhav Nagar-2,

                             New Kalmeshwar Nagar, Kangrali BK, Belgaum,  

(By Sri. B.N.Patil, Advocate).

Vs.

Opponents:         Pioneer Telelink (Proprietor)

                             Shop No.3068, Khade Bazar, Belagavi

(By Sri.A.M.Soudagar, Adv.)

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency for non repairing mobile.

          2) Notice was served to O.P. and appointed his Advocate. OP has not filed his objections to main petition.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has not filed affidavit but produced some documents.

4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and O.Ps. and have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency on the part of O.P & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.

REASONS

          7) The complainant has purchased Nokia Mobile Handset from OP on 05.06.2015 for Rs.5,500/-. After purchase of the Mobile Handset, after 3 to 4 days complainant came to know that there is defect in the Mobile Handset. The battery of the Mobile Handset  is not working properly. After the complainant approached the OP for repair or exchange of Mobile Handset. The complainant requested the OP to exchange the complainant. Inspite of that the OP refused to repair the Mobile Handset or replace the same. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of OP. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OP through her counsel. The OP has failed to reply to the same. Hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint.

8) The complainant filed this complaint for deficiency of service on the part of OP. The OP has failed to file objections to the main petition and produce evidence affidavit. The complainant also not produced evidence affidavit. Mere allegation is not sufficient to prove deficiency of service on the part of OP. Complainant failed to prove the contents of complaint through evidence. The complainant failed to prove deficiency on the part of OP. There are no grounds to allow the complaint. Considering the facts and material on record, at this stage, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence we answer the point in Negative. Accordingly following order;

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 28^th day of July 2016)

          Member                Member                          President.

msr*