O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Samsung from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- vide cashmemo No.5725 dated 13.12.2011. It is further alleged in the complaint that mobile handset was having manufacturing defect and the mobile handset was deposited with OP-1 vide work order NO.162061 dated 5.10.2012, which was sent to OP-2 and the same was returned to the complainant after a gap of about 24 days. It is further alleged in the complaint that as the mobile handset again started giving trouble it was handed over to OP-4 but he has not received the said mobile handset so far. It has been pleaded that a legal notice dated 22.7.2013 was served on the OPs but despite the same neither any reply has been received nor the notice complied with. Vide the present complaint, the complainant has sought the replacement of mobile handset or refund of the cost of mobile handset paid by him. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and torture in addition to litigation cost.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to O.Ps. O.P-1, 2 & 4 have filed their written statement. In the reply, the OPs have admitted the sale of mobile handset to the complainant. It has been pleaded that no specific defect has been mentioned in the complaint. It has also been pleaded that although mobile handset is out of warranty but it is willing to offer the repairs support based upon the condition of the said mobile handset provided with the mobile handset has normal wear and tear and do not due to any external damage or factor. The OPs have denied the fact that the complainant has made various complaints or request for return of the mobile handset. It has also been specifically denied that the said mobile handset has incurred continuous defects and was having manufacturing defects, infact the OPs have denied all the averements raised in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3. Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their case. The complainant has filed on record cashmemo in his name which shows that the mobile handset was sold to him by OP-1 for a sum of Rs.23,000/-. Complainant has also filed on record copy of the legal notice issued on 22.7.13 alongwith receipts of courier in support of the fact that the notices were dispatched to the OPs.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record. The complainant has not filed any job-card/service report which can prove that the mobile handset was deposited with OP-1 on 5.10.2012. There is also no document on record which shows that the mobile handset was again handed over to OP-4 subsequently. In the complaint nothing has been said regarding the nature of complaint experienced by the complainant. Also no technical expert report regarding the malfunctioning of the mobile handset has also been filed on record by the complainant. In such circumstances it is difficult to believe the version of the complainant that the mobile handset was giving problems or was having manufacturing defects. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the considered view that OPs are neither liable for selling any defected items/goods nor any deficiency in service has been proved against the OPs. The complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merits. Hence, the complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 3rd day of March, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
