DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==================

Harbans Kaur w/o Gurpreet Singh, resident of H.No.565, Phase 3-B-I, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     The Proprietor/ owner of M/s Mobile Buzz (A complete Mobile Shoppee), SCO No. 89-90-91, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

2]     M/s Nokia Care, Quite Office No. 7, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

        ---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. I.P. Atre, Adv. for Complainant.

Opposite Party No.1 Ex-parte.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv for Opposite Party No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.             The instant complaint relates to a mobile handset (Nokia E-72) sold by Opposite Party No. 1 to the Complainant.

                As per the allegations of the Complainant, she had purchased the said mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 on 6.2.2010 for Rs.19,800/- vide receipt Annexure C-1.  As per the Complainant, the mobile handset became defective within 03 months of purchase but the Opposite Parties were not been able to either repair or replace the same, despite the Complainant having visited them a number of times.

                The Complainant has, thus, filed this complaint with a prayer for refund or replacement of the mobile handset.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party No.1.

3.             As despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, therefore, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 20.09.2010.

4.             The complaint was initially filed against Opposite Party No.1 only. However, during the course of proceedings, the Complainant filed an application dated 19.10.2010 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading manufacturing company namely Nokia through M/s Nokia Care, Quite Office No.7, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh as Opposite Party No.2. This application was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2010 and the said Nokia through M/s Nokia Care, Quite Office No.7, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh was impleaded as Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, notice was sent to Opposite Party No.2.

5.             Opposite Party No.2 in reply has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has never approached them for repair of the said handset. Also the manufacturing company i.e. Nokia India Pvt. Limited has not been made a party to the complaint. Opposite Party No.2 has also placed on record Manufacturer’s Limited Liability at Annexure OP-2/1 and stated that the handset in question cannot be repaired/ replaced free of cost even within the warranty period as the warranty ceases if the set is found to be liquid logged or exposed to moisture. The defect in the handset can only be answered by the Opposite Party No.1 and if the handset had become non-operational due to absorption of moisture then the handset could not be replaced/ repaired as per the warranty. Opposite Party No. 2 has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.

6.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.1 being ex-parte) and have perused the record.

8.             As per the version of the Complainant she had purchased the mobile handset in question from Opposite Party No.1, which became defective within three months of purchase. However, the Complainant has not attached any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to show the dates when she had the mobile handset to the Opposite Parties for repair. The manufacturer has also not been impleaded as a Party to the lis and Opposite Party No.2 which is the Service Center of the Manufacturer has categorically stated that the Complainant has not come to them to get the defective mobile hand set repaired. Opposite Party No.2 is not aware of any defects in the mobile handset and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                A legal notice was also sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the Complainant had asked for replacement/ repair of the defective mobile handset as per the terms of warranty. However, the legal notice has not been replied by the Opposite Party No.1.

9.             In our opinion, the Complainant has not been able to prove her case, as she has not placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate the alleged defect in the mobile handset in question. There is no evidence to show when she has visited the Opposite Parties for getting the handset repaired/ replaced. In the absence of any evidence to prove her averments and also denial by the Opposite Party No.2 (Service Center) that the Complainant has ever visited them to get the mobile handset repaired, the complaint cannot be allowed.

10.           In view of the above, we dismiss the complaint. No costs.

11.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th January, 2012.                                                        

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER