DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                  Complaint no. 351                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:    20.07.2017                                                                                  

                                                                  Decided on:     25.10.2017

Golu Narinder Kumar aged about 40 years son of Prem Chand resident of Jhiyun Wala Sunami Gate, Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Shan Traders Resident Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

2.    Binni Telecom Court Road Back Side Post Office Sangrur

3.     Lava International Ltd. through its Managing Director Corporate Address A-56 Sector 64 Noida 201-301 U.P.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  Neeraj Kalra, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1            :      Exparte

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2&3     :      Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President  

1.             Golu Narinder Kumar complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Lava A-97 (4G) phone from OP no.1 on 15.04.2017 after paying Rs.6350/-  under one year guarantee/ warranty. After purchase of two months it started giving problem i.e. lines appearing on the display of the mobile set  for which  complainant approached OP no.2  who issued job sheet. On 08.07.2017 the OP no.2 returned the mobile set after repair  but on a very next date  the mobile set again started giving problem of  lines on the display  and complainant again approached the OP no.2  and again  job sheet was issued  on 10.07.2017 but on 13.07.2017  when complainant approached the OP no.2 to take mobile set then OP no.2  said that there is manufacturing defect in it which cannot be repaired. The complainant  requested the OPs to replace the said mobile set  or to return the money but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.6350/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of claim,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.1 did not appear and as such OP no.1 was proceeded exparte on 01.09.2017.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no. 2 and 3,  it is submitted that company provides one year warranty and warranty means repair and not replacement.  The complainant  approached the Op no.2 on 10.07.2017 and engineer of the company checked the unit and resolved the issue. After that the complainant never reported any issue regarding his unit and without any cause of action the complainant directly filed the present complaint. . Thus, there is no  deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no. 2 and 3.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no. 2 and 3 have tendered documents and  closed evidence.

5.             The OPs no.2 and 3 have specifically stated in their written statement that the complainant had approached the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the company on 10.07.2017 with complaint  of lines on display of the mobile set in question and after checking  engineer of the OPs resolved the said issue/ problem.  Thereafter the complainant  never reported any issue  regarding his unit  rather he filed the present complaint directly without any cause of action. The complainant has not specifically denied the version of the OPs.

6.             The complainant's case is that  on 13.07.2017 he approached the Op no.2 and collected the said mobile set and  at that time the OP no.2 told him that there is manufacturing defect in it which cannot repaired. Surprisingly,  the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence which proves his version that the OP no.2 told him that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question when  the OPs have particularly denied this fact in their written statement. Moreover, the complainant has not produced report of any expert which proves that there is any defect/manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified.  Further, the complainant has not produced any document  which shows that after 10.07.2017  the problem persisted and he approached continuously approached the OPs to resolve the said problem.    

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. So, we dismiss the complaint. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                                Announced

                October 25, 2017

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)     ( Sarita Garg)         (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                

                 Member            Member                         President