BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 101 of 2014                                                                         

                                                         Date of Institution         :    25.7.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :   2.9.2016

Satpal Singh son of Sh. Malkeet Singh, resident of village Dhingana, Tehsil Sardoolgarh, District Mansa (Punjab).

                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Sumit Mobiles, Circular Road, Near Narula Plywood Company, Jagdev Singh Chowk, Sirsa through its Proprietor.

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1-Sec 81, Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, (Uttar Pradesh)

...…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.Rahul Sharma,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for Opposite party no.1.

Opposite party no.2 exparte.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of November, 2013, the complainant purchased a mobile make Samsung Tab-2 from op no.1 and op no.1 had given one year warranty of the same. The complainant purchased the said Tab for an amount of Rs.9000/-. After ten days of purchase of this mobile, the mobile was not charged due to fault occurred in its charging socket, on which he alongwith Bhupinder Singh Saran, Adv. approached to care centre at Sirsa but its official checked the IMEI number on internet due to issuance of original bill of that mobile to another person and then officials told to the complainant that bill dated 28.2.2013 is forged and fabricated. They also told that limitation for repair of mobile from their care centre has been expired and so op no.1 got repaired this mobile from private shopkeeper. When the complainant alongwith Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Adv. approached to op no.1 he clearly stated that he has issued a forged and fabricated bill and now this tab was having no warranty and stated to do anything against him. Due to the act and conduct of the op no.1, the complainant has suffered mental and physical pain and also financial loss and the work of the complainant has been affected as he practices in Civil Court, Sardoolgarh being an Advocate. The complainant also got served legal notice upon ops to replace the defective tab or to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing written statement and submitted that complainant never purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 nor op no.1 had issued any bill in this regard, hence question of committing any such fraud upon complainant does not arise at all. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as complainant has not made the care centre as a party. Other contents of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover but none appeared on its behalf and after stipulated period of one month, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.  

4.                No evidence by way of affidavits and documents has been led by the parties.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and ld. counsel for op no.1 and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant alongwith his complaint annexed a bill dated 28.2.2013 alleging that said bill has been issued by opposite party no.1 which is a forged and fabricated bill and therefore fraud has been committed upon him. However, in support of his allegations the complainant has not placed on file his affidavit or affidavit of the persons mentioned in the complaint. The bill dated 28.2.2013 placed on file is of Chamunda Enterprises and is in favour of one Sh. Chand Krishan, r/o 61/A, Shah Satnam Pura, DSS, Sirsa and has been issued against the price of Rs.17,200/- whereas the complainant claims to have purchased the mobile in question for a sum of Rs.9000/-. The contents of the said bill are altogether different and complainant was required to see the same at the time of issuing of the same. The complainant was required to approach police authorities if any fraud has been committed upon him.

7.                Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:2.9.2016.                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.