Haryana

Ambala

CC/408/2016

Navneet - Complainant(s)

Versus

Salora International Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 408 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.11.2016

                                                          Date of decision            : 04.07.2017

 

          Navneet S/o Pal Singh, resident of house No.108 Preet Colony, Jandli,    Ambala City (Haryana).   

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Salora International Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39      Soukya Road Kacherakenahalli Hoskote Taluka Bangalore, Rural District Bangalore-560067 Karnataka, India (through its chairman/Managing        Director/Manager).

2.       Salora International Ltd, D-13/4, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II Near C Lal      Chowk, New Delhi, India-110020. (Through its G.M.).,

3.       Matrola Service Centre, Shop No.175/7(FF) Part Bank Road Ambala Cantt      (Through its Service Manager).

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for complainant.

                   OP No.3 already exparte v.o.d. 20.01.2017.

                   OPs No.1 and 2 already exparte v.o.d. 18.04.2017

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone namely Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen IMEI No.354115075018992 online on ordered through amazon.in bearing bill No.KA-BLRS-168078231-50404 dated 22.06.2016 from the OP No.1 for Rs.15099/-.   The mobile phone started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. mother board not working properly and create heat problem in the mobile due to this the mobile has out of order. Then the complainant went to OP NO.3 and deposited his mobile for repair and on 15.10.2016 as and when the complainant went to take back his mobile set from the OP No.3 and check the mobile but the above said mobile could not repair till date. Further submitted that the complainant again approached to the service centre but they not attended the complainant rather misbehaved with him and flatly refused to do anything in the matter. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting that this Hon’ble Forum does have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under the consumer Protection act qua the answering OP No.1 & 2 as they are situated in New Delhi and Karnataka. Further submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 are not a manufacturer of the mobile phone of the complainant but is only a trader and manufacturer has not been made a party to the present complaint.        

                   On the other hand, registered notice also issued to OP No.3 but none have turned up on their behalf and he was proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 20.01.2017.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and close his evidence. Ops No.1 and 2 did not bothered with the present case after filing of written statement and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.04.2017.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. complainant had purchased a mobile phone namely Moto G Plus, 4^th Gen IMEI No.354115075018992 online on ordered through amazon.in bearing bill No.KA-BLRS-168078231-50404 dated 22.06.2016 from the OP No.1 for Rs.15099/- Annexure C-1 and stated giving problems like mother board not working properly and create heat problem in the mobile due to this the mobile has out of order but the OPs failed to rectify the above said problem of the mobile in question.

                   Perusal of the Job Sheet Annexure C-2 reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to internal liquid abuse. It is clear that internal liquid abuse problem might have been occurred due to mishandling of the mobile in question by the complainant. No other evidence has been placed on case file by the complainant which shows that the mobile in question is having any type of manufacture defect. So, the complainant failed to prove his case in the absence of cogent evidence and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :04.07.2017                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                         Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                       Member