| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 21.2.2017 Decided on: 9.8.2017 Hardeep Singh son of Sh.Harbans Singh, resident of House No.69, Green Lehal, Passy Road, Patiala-147001. …………...Complainant Versus XPERT COMMUNICATION , inside Shera Wala Gate, Patiala-147001, through its Proprietor. …………Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate,counsel for complainant. Opposite party ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant had purchased one mobile phone, Model-57 Edge SM-G9350, having IMEI No.3561566075761510. Serial No.R28H33934PX of SAMSUNG, while on tour to China in the month of April 2016 for a sum of Rs.55000/-. It is averred that after some time, the said mobile phone started giving problem in ‘display line’ and to get the said defect rectified , the complainant deposited the said mobile phone with the OP on 2.8.2016. After checking the mobile phone OP told the complainant that there was problem in the display of the mobile phone and it will function properly after the replacement of the same. OP told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after 15 days. After 15 days, the complainant collected the mobile phone and paid a sum of Rs.14500/- i.e. the charges for the replacement of the display. When the complainant inserted the SIM in the mobile phone, it did not start and the complainant again approached the OP who told the complainant to collect the same after one week but the mobile phone was giving the same problem. After this the complainant sent two e-mails but the OP failed to handover the mobile phone in running condition. It is further averred that in the 1st week of October, the complainant asked the OP to return the mobile phone in running condition or to refund the amount f Rs.14500/- i.e. charges for the replacement of the display alongwith cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.55000/- but to no use. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment as well as mental agony. The complainant has further averred that after replacement of the display of the mobile phone, failure on the part of the OP to return the mobile phone in running condition, amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, the OP failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of the case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the photo copy of the job sheet dated 2.8.2016, which shows that the mobile phone was out of warranty and its repair charges would be Rs.14500/-. In the complaint also, the complainant has submitted that he got the mobile phone repaired by paying a sum of Rs.14500/-. The complainant has alleged that when he inserted the SIM in the mobile phone, it did not start. After a week he again visited the shop of the OP. Though the complainant has alleged that he approached the OP but he has failed to produce on record any job sheet which may show that the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified despite replacement of the display and the complainant again got the mobile phone deposited with the OP. In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, it cannot be ascertained that the defect could not be rectified and the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with the OP for the rectification of the problem. Sofar as the refund of the price of the mobile phone is concerned, the complainant has failed to place on record the invoice to show that the problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period. As such, the OP cannot be said to be deficient in service in any way.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and is liable to be dismissed without any order as to costs and we order accordingly. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:9.8.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
