Durga Wati filed a consumer case on 03 Jan 2019 against Preet Communication in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/95 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Aug 2019.
THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 95 of 08.10.2018
Date of decision : 03.01.2019
Durga Wati aged about 20 years, daughter of Munner Prashad, resident of Room No.277, Type II, Thermal Power Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Munner Prashad, authorized representative of complainant
Sh. Narinder Singh, proprietor of OP No.1
OP No.2 exparte
ORDER
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
4. A notice was issued to the OP No.2 but none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.12.2018.
5. On being called upon to do so, the authorized representative of complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents copy of bill dated 01.06.2017 ex.C1 and closed the evidence. The proprietor of OP No.1 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. Complainant is Durga Wati and the complaint is filed through her father Munner Prashad. She pleaded in the complaint that after the purchase of the mobile set dated 1.6.2017 for a sum of Rs.5500/- from OP No.1, the mobile set started creating trouble in functioning. After that the complainant requested the OP No.1 for the necessary repair/replacement but no fruit. Hence, the complaint. Munner Prashad made submission that the deficiency on the part of the O.Ps., because of the non functioning of the mobile set has been proved and the complaint be allowed and the O.Ps. be directed either to replace the mobile set or to pay sale price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.5500/- with interest.
8. OP No.1 Narinder Singh, is the proprietor of the firm, who filed reply and admitted the sale/purchase of the mobile set, but took the plea that complainant did not approach the customer care centre and if the care centre gives the report qua the functioning then liability can be fixed against the manufacturer. He prayed when deficiency remain un-prove then no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant.
9. Complainant Durga Wati, purchased mobile set on 1.6.2017 vide receipt Ex.C1 i.e. admitted by OP No.1 and the sale/purchase of the mobile set stand proves. Relationship between the complainant and O.Ps. stand established as consumer. So the complaint is maintainable and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.
10. Complainant pleaded deficiency on the part of the O.Ps, because of the reason that the purchased mobile set not functioning as per her satisfaction. Complainant approached the O.P. No.1, who suggested to approach the care centre. Though, in the complaint as well as an affidavit Ex.CW1/A, complainant pleaded qua the defect as well as approach to the OP No.1 but nothing on file to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. or qua the functioning of the mobile set purchased on 1.6.2017. It is primary duty of the complainant as and when to approach the District Consumer Forum qua the deficiency of any of the purchased item like mobile set is to prove deficiency in working through expert evidence/opinion. It was better for the complainant to firstly approach to the care centre and if the care centre reports qua the manufacturing defect or the defect is not repairable then the manufacturer could be held responsible. In the complaint in hand, complainant remains unable in proving firstly deficiency qua the services rendered by the OP No.1 from whom she purchased the mobile set, secondly not approached the care centre and thirdly in the absence of the expert opinion qua the functioning of the mobile set. The Forum is unable to come to the conclusion qua the deficiency in service against the O.Ps. and in favour of the complainant. So, it is held that complainant remains unable in proving deficiency in service and the complaint is without merit.
11. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Liberty is granted to the complainant if the functioning of the mobile set in question is improper or not to her satisfaction then to approach the care centre and if care centre gives report in her favour then to approach the Forum by filing afresh complaint.
12. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)
Dated.03.01.2019 PRESIDENT
(CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.