Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/188/2016

Kuldeep Kumar S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sethi Computers & Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Bansal

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                        Complaint Case No.188 of 2016.

                                                        Date of institution: 06.06.2016.

                                                        Date of decision: 24.11.2017.

Kuldeep Kumar, aged 31 years, S/o Sh. Dharam Pal, R/o Village Sandhali, P.O. Gumthala Rao, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                          

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                   Versus

1. Sethi Computers & Electronics, 4/660, Azad Nagar, near Street No.11, Main Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Propreitor/Authorized Signatory.
2. Pristine Enamor, 175/7, Ist Floor, Bank Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.
3. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakund Village, Marathhali Outer Ring Road, Marathhali Post, Kr. Puram Habli, Bangalore-560037, through its Managing Director/Manager. 

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Saurabh Bansal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                 Op No.1 already given-up.

                 Op No.2 already exparte.

                 Sh. B.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

                

ORDER: (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

                 The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.              Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased a mobile set make Lenovo A-600 Plus bearing IMEI No.867371022447236 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.8200/- vide invoice No.5001 dt. 05.06.2015.  It is alleged that the mobile set became defective from the very beginning with the problem switch off and net time restarting problem and on 27.06.2015, the mobile set was brought to the service-centre of Op No.2 and it was revealed that the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect and consequently, the mobile set in question was retained by the Op No.2.  After 2 days, the mobile set in question was returned with the assurance that the mobile set in question is very much O.K.  It is further alleged that thereafter again the said mobile set started giving same problems and despite several repairs, the mobile set was not working properly and again in the month of March, 2016 the said mobile set in question started giving some problems i.e. over-heating, slow processing, auto switch off, hanging and the mobile set in question was deposited with the Op no.2.  It is further alleged that the Op No.2 illegally charged Rs.342/- from the complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set in question or to refund a sum of Rs.8200/- i.e. sale price of the mobile set alongwith interest and to refund Rs.342/- illegally charged by the Op No.2 and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 22.07.2016 and Op No.1 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 30.09.2016.  Op No.3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set and if any problem occurs, their authorized service-centre is committed to redress the same in terms of the warranty/service contract; that there was no service request logged with the authorized service-centre dt. 27^th of June, 2015 and September, 2015 as alleged by the complainant; that the first service request was logged in the month of December, 2015 regarding hanging issues for which the software was upgraded and the log was closed and the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant on the same day; that the second service request was logged on 14.03.2016 which was closed by replacing respective parts on chargeable basis.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.              Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure CA and documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.              On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure-R3/A alongwith document Annexure-R3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.3.    

6.              We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.              From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.8200/- vide invoice No.5001 dated 05.06.2015. The dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, the mobile set in question became defective from the very beginning with the problems of switch off and net time restarting and despite repairs by the Ops on several occasions i.e. 27.06.2015, September, 2015, December, 2015, March, 2016 and May, 2016, the defects were not removed from the said mobile set.  The complainant further alleged in the complaint that in the month of March, 2016, the Op No.2 illegally charged Rs.342/-, whereas the mobile set in question was within warranty period.  To rebut the contention of complainant, the Op No.3 has specifically mentioned in the written statement that the complainant approached the service-centre after six months from the purchase of mobile set.  The first service request was logged in the month of December, 2015 regarding hanging issues for which the software was upgraded and the log was closed and the mobile handset was handed over to the complainant on the same day.  The second service request was logged on 14.03.2016 which was resolved by the service-centre of the Ops by replacing some parts on chargeable basis because the complainant had failed to produce the original bill.

                 We have perused all the record available on the file and on perusal of record, it is clear that there was no service request logged with the authorized service centre with regard to dated 27.06.2015, September, 2015 and May, 2016, as alleged/pleaded by the complainant in his complaint.  So far as the complaint with regard to hanging issue in the month of December, 2015 is concerned, the software was upgraded and the problem was resolved and the mobile set was returned to the complainant.   The complainant has placed on file only one job-sheet dated 14.03.2016, Annexure C-2 and on the said job-sheet, it is mentioned that “S/W update wrong bill”.  So, from the said job-sheet, it is clear that the complainant had not submitted the original invoice with the Op No.2 and for the said reason, the Op No.2 charged Rs.342/- for replacing some parts.  The complainant has not placed on file any document/expert report/job-sheet of Ops from which it could be inferred that the mobile set was having any manufacturing defect.  So, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove on the file that there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile set.  Hence, we find no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.                                                     

8.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dated: 24.11.2017.

                                                   (SATPAL)

                                                   PRESIDENT.

 

 

             (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)        

                                                 MEMBER