Punjab

Sangrur

CC/134/2015

Narpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prime Infocome - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    134

                                                Instituted on:      13.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       21.08.2015

 

 

 

Narpinder Singh son of Hardev Singh, resident of Near Gurudwara Sahib, Village Sraud, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Prime Infocom, Opposite Main Gate Govt. College, Malerkotla 148 023 (PB) Distt. Sangrur authorised service centre for Karbon Mobile and Smart phone through its Prop/owner/authorised signatory.

2.             Karbon Mobiles, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi 110 020 through its MD/Chairman/Partner/authorised signatory.

3.             Karbon Mobile, 39/13, Off 7^th Main Hal, 2^nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indira Nagar, Bangalore-350038 through MD/Chairman/Partner/authorised signatory.

4.             M/s. Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through its Prop/Owner/authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OPs No.2 to 4      :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.1.             :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Narpinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Karbon S2 mobile set from OP number 2 on 15.8.2013.  The case of the complainant is that after a few days of its purchase, the mobile set started giving problem i.e. display (touch) did not respond to the commands given and the mobile set use to get hanged.  As such, the complainant approached the OP number 4, who advised the complainant to visit OP number 1. As such, the complainant visited OP number 1 on 9.12.2013 and the set was returned to the complainant duly repaired after a few days. It is stated further that despite that the mobile is still not working properly. Thereafter the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP number 1 on 14.12.2013 and the mobile set was returned.  Thereafter the complainant again visited OP number 1 on 12.3.2014 with the defective mobile set and OP number 1 told that there is some software problem and advised the complainant to get the mobile set after some days, but the mobile set in question was not returned to the complainant thereafter.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to return the mobile set of the complainant in working condition, if not repairable to the satisfaction then to hand over a new mobile set and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 27.4.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 to 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of warranty period and jurisdiction of this Forum has also been disputed.  On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set from OP number 4. However, it has been denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 4 for any fault of the mobile set.  It is admitted that the complainant approached OP number 1 on 9.12.2013 for the problem of hanging and touch display, which was duly rectified. It is further stated that the complainant approached OP number 1 on 14.12.2013 and the OP number 1 issued the job card and OP number 1 checked the mobile set and found that there was no problem in the mobile set and the mobile set was returned to the complainant. It is stated further that the mobile set in question is with the complainant and not with the OPs.   As such any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of job sheets, Ex.C-7 copy of bill, Ex.C-8 copy of RC, Ex.C-9 copy of report, Ex.C-10 copy of AD slip and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 to 4 have produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill dated 15.08.2013 issued by OP number 4 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.9200/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 4. But, in the present case, the main grievance of the complainant is that though he approached OP number 1 a number of times for repairs of the mobile set in question, but the same was not repaired and made it in working order and lastly the mobile set in question was kept by the OP number 1.  As such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that necessary directions be given to OP number 1 to return the mobile set in question duly repaired and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 2 to 4 has contended vehemently that the mobile set in question whenever handed over by the complainant to OP number 1 then the same was returned to the complainant after necessary repairs.   The complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that the mobile in question is lying with the OP number 1, more so when the OP number 1 has clearly denied in the reply as well as in the affidavit of Raj Kumar that the mobile set in question is not with OP number 1. Moreover it is the own case of the complainant that he handed over the mobile set in question to the OP number 1 on 12.3.2014 for repairs, but the same was not returned thereafter. But, a bare perusal of the file reveals that the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to show that he ever demanded the mobile set from OP number 1 except issuing of the legal notice dated 4.12.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. It further shows that the complainant kept mum for a period of about nine months and ever did not raise any demand for delivery of the mobile set in question by OP number 1. As such, we feel that the mobile set in question was with the complainant himself and not with the OP number 1.  Further the complainant has not produced on record any report of expert to show that the mobile set in question is defective one. It is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question vide bill dated 5.8.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-7, whereas, the present complaint has been filed on 13.3.2015 after expiry of more than one and half years of its purchase.  As such, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.  In the circumstances of the case, we find no case made out against the OPs.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 21, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member