BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.245 of 2011
Date of Institution : 4.11.2011
Date of Decision : 8.8.2016
Ramesh Kathuria (aged about 59 years) sonof Sh.Suraj Prakash Kathuria, r/o Mohata Garden, Begu Road, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shri Ganesh Telecom, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa through its partner/proprietor/authorized person.
2. M/s Chugh Telecom, M.C.Market (Old civil hospital market), Circular Road, Sirsa through its partner/proprietor/authorized person.
3. Spice Mobiles Ltd., D-1, Sector-3, NOIDA through its Managing Director/Authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….…PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL …… …MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.
Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 4.11.2010, the complainant purchased a new mobile handset Spice-C5300 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.2200/- vide bill no.1443 with full guarantee and warranty in case of any default in the mobile set. But, after three months of its purchase, the mobile set started showing defects in display and main plate/mother-board. He approached to Op2-the authorized service centre, who kept the mobile set with him for repair and returned it on the next day by saying that the defects have been removed. But, on checking the mobile set by the complainant at home, it was in the same condition and was out of order. He visited Ops, but they did not pay any heed. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Op no.2 and thus, it was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 2.1.2012, whereas op no.1 put in appearance through Sh.R.K.Mehta, Advocate, but later on it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 2.4.2012 as none appeared on its behalf.
3. Only opposite party no.3 contested the case by filing reply. It is pleaded that answering respondent possess a goodwill and have an established market and assumed a good reputation over a years in respect of the business, which they carry out. The allegations made against them are vague and general in nature. The complainant has neither attached even a single job sheet nor any warranty card. In the absence of requisite information, they are unable to provide any update on the matter. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit, Ex.C2-cash memo and Ex.C3-postal receipt.
5. To the contrary, opposite party no.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.B.M.Agarwal, its Deputy General Manager.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
7. There is absolutely nothing on record to prove or to presume any manufacturing defect in the mobile set, purchased by the complainant from opposite party no.1. In this regard, only his own affidavit is not, at all, sufficient to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile set. To prove manufacturing defect, the complainant could have got the mobile set examined from some expert. But, he has not done so. Not only this, not even a single time, the mobile set was got examined/repaired from any mechanic or from any service centre. It is upon the complainant to prove that the mobile set has manufacturing defect, but the complainant failed to place on record any job sheet etc. to prove that he had brought the mobile set to the service centre i.e. op no.2 for repair.
8. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 8.8.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
D.C.D.R.F.,
Sirsa.
