Haryana

StateCommission

A/1192/2016

SURAJ PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIQUE SALES CORPORATION - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.MITTAL

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1192 of 2016

Date of Institution:  13.12.2016

Date of Decision:    24.01.2017

 

Suraj Pal son of Sh. Harful Singh, resident of Village Kelnia, Post Office Ahmedpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Unique Sales Corporation, Opposite Head Post Office, Sirsa-122055 (Haryana) through its  Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      Sony India Private Limited, Registered Office: A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi -110044 through its Managing Director/Manager Authorized Signatory.

 

3.      Chugh Telecom, New M.C. Market Shop No.81, 82, Sirsa-125055 through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.              

                            

 

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated October 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      The grievance of the complainant was that he purchased a mobile handset of Sony make on January 11^th, 2015 from Unique Sales Corporation, Sirsa-opposite party No.1. It was a defective piece. The complainant requested the opposite parties to rectify the defects but to no avail.

3.      The opposite parties, in their, written version denied any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and pleaded that the mobile handset had passed the battery test. 

4.      The complainant did not lead any evidence to prove that the mobile handset was the defective piece. Since, there was no defect in the mobile handset, so, question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties does not arise.  In view of this, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal is also dismissed.

 

  

Announced 24.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK