DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.436 of 13

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 25-09.2013

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: 20-07-2016

Saket aged 19 years son of Shri Parmod Masta, resident of Gali Mastan, Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                

Shree Raj Communication, near old Devsar Chungi, near PNB Bank, Bhiwani, through its Proprietor Pawan Goel son of Shri Kapoor Chnd Goel.

………….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

                    Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-   Sh. K.R. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

      None for OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile of carbon company amounting to Rs. 7200/- vide bill no. 870 dated 09.05.2013 from the OP.  It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective  and complaint was lodged with the respondent. The complainant visited the OP many times but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP he has to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss.  Now the complainant has claimed the new Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.

2.                 Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not impleaded Carbon Mobile Company i.e. the manufacture company of the mobile company.  It is submitted that the answering respondent at the time of sell of mobile in question has made this fact clear to the complainant that the guarantee/warrantee if any the same will be on the part of the manufacturing company and respondent will not liable for any guarantee/warrantee or complaint of mobile in question.  It is submitted that the complainant has not supplied the bill of mobile in question to the answering respondent.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Mark A and documents Annexure A to Annexure C.

4.                 In reply thereto, the OP has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1 alongwith supporting affidavit. 

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant from OP vide bill dated 09.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 7200/-.  He submitted that since the purchase of the mobile handset it is not in working condition due to defect.

7.                The OP in person did not appear for arguments.  We have considered his written statement.

8.                 The complainant has not produced any job sheet of the service centre to prove his contention.  It has been pleaded on behalf of the OP that the manufacturing company of the mobile handset Carbon mobile company has not been impleaded party to the complaint.  He is only the seller of the mobile handset and the customer care of the company repair the mobile handset of the company.  If any liability arises then it is the liability of the mobile handset manufacturing company.  There is no deficiency in service on his part.

9.                 Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the manufacturing company of the mobile handset and customer care were necessary party, which have not been impleaded by the complainant in his complaint.  In these circumstances, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- to the complainant as lumpsum compensation.  This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:20-07-2016.                                                                 (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                       President,        

                                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Anamika Gupta)                (Sudesh)

                          Member                       Member