Haryana

Sirsa

CC/23/114

Gurdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savan Retailer Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Neeraj Mehta

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/23/114
( Date of Filing : 02 Mar 2023 )
 
1. Gurdev
Sai Auto Janta Hospital Road Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Savan Retailer Pvt Ltd
2nd Floor Plot No 8 Sec 44 Gurgaon Gurugram
Gurugram
Haryana
2. Sachdeva Sales Corporation
Behind LIC BuildingOLD Civil Hospital Complex Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Padam Singh Thakur PRESIDENT
  Sukhdeep Kaur MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Neeraj Mehta, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 15 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer complaint no. 114 of 2023.       

                                                          Date of Institution:            02.03.2023.

                                                          Date of Decision:     15.10.2024          

           

Gurdev son of Jarnail Singh, resident of Sai Auto, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa (Haryana).

 

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1. Savan Retailer Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Plot No.08, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Gurugram (Haryana) through its Prop/ Managers.

 

2. Sachdeva Sales Corporation (Service Center of Infinix Mobile), Behind LIC Building Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa (Haryana) Prop/ Managers.

 

                                                                              ……… Opposite parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,  2019.

 

 Before:      SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR ……………………MEMBER

 

Present:         Sh. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate for person.

                   Opposite party no.1 already exparte.                                                                               

                  Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                  

ORDER:-

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that on 17.03.2022 complainant purchased one mobile Infinix Note 11 from Flipkart with one year warranty through online. That one day suddenly the touch screen of said mobile did not work properly and it was completely black and as such complainant approached to op no.2 i.e. Service Center of Infinix Mobile for repair of his mobile but op no.2 did not redress his grievance and stated that mobile is not covered in warranty. It is further averred that complainant requested the op no.2 many times to redress his grievance but op no.2 stated that they cannot do anything. The complainant also sent a legal notice on 09.02.2023 to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 failed to appear despite delivery of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.1, therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

4.                Op no.2 appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and material facts and estoppal etc. It is submitted that as a matter of fact complainant has purchased the above said mobile through online shopping site for which answering op has no concern. Moreover, the complainant never visited to the premises of answering op for alleged complaint and allegations are self contradictory, vague and baseless. It is further submitted that complaint is not supported with any mechanical or any type of expert engineer report, so as per amended provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, no complaint with regard to alleged defect could proceed without expert opinion. The complainant has failed to implead the necessary party in the complaint. In fact he is aware that manufacturing company is in China and only outlet/ service incharge/ device care unit is responsible for the manufacturing company, which has not been impleaded as a necessary party. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

5.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

6.                Op no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have gone through the case file.

8.                From the tax invoice attached with debit note Ex.C1 it is evident that on 17.03.2022 complainant placed an online order to op no.1 for purchase of mobile in question of the amount of Rs.11,499/- against the exchange of an old mobile and new mobile in question was delivered to the complainant on 23.03.2022 for an amount of Rs.6199/- as an amount of Rs.5300/- was deducted being exchange value of old mobile. However, complainant has failed to prove on record any defect in the mobile in question through any expert opinion/ report in this regard. He has not placed on file any job sheet etc. in this regard. The mobile in question was delivered to the complainant on 23.03.2022 and complainant sent legal notice to the ops on 09.02.2023 i.e. after expiry of about 11 months and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that before 09.02.2023 also the mobile in question of complainant developed any problem/ defect in it. If there was any problem/ manufacturing defect in the mobile, it could not have worked for about 11 months. Further more, normal wear and tear in the product after use of the same for such a long time cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. Moreover, although as per version of op no.2, the manufacturing company is in China but op no.1 has also asserted that outlet/ service incharge/ device care unit situated at Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida is responsible for the manufacturing company, but despite providing of address of that outlet by op no.2, the complainant has failed to implead that outlet as op in this case which was a necessary party being responsible for the manufacturing company. Even otherwise also the complainant has failed to make out a case for replacement of mobile with new or for refund of the amount of mobile in question.  

9.                In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.      

 

Announced.                             Member                           President,

Dated:15.10.2024                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

 
 
[ Padam Singh Thakur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sukhdeep Kaur]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.