Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/717/2016

Karam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/717/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02/09/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	30/01/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Karam Chand S/o Sh. Ram Saroop, R/o V. Jaswantgarh P.O. Billa, District Panchkula (Haryana).

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

(1)  Friends Telecom, 141 Old Ropar Road, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

(2)  INTEX Services Centre, Showroom Sec.35, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	None
For Opposite Parties	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased one “INTEX ECO 105” mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 on 2.9.2015 for Rs.850/- vide bill Annexure C-1, carrying a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase (warranty card Annexure C-2). It has been alleged that just after 15 days of its purchase, the aforesaid mobile handset went out of order, and was repaired by Opposite Party No.1 after charging Rs.100/-. Again, after one month, when the mobile handset gone out of order, the Opposite Party No.1 repaired the same again and returned it to the Complainant. Thereafter, the mobile handset gone out of order time & again and every time the Opposite Party No.1 repaired the same and returned it back to the Complainant. Notwithstanding this, the problem in the mobile never improved and always it was going out of order. It has been further alleged that lastly when the Complainant went to get the aforesaid mobile handset repaired from the Opposite Party No.1, it refused to repair and directed him to approach Opposite Party No.2, who after inspecting the same also refused to repair the handset saying that it has been opened outside.  Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.   

 

5.      The ex-parte evidence makes it evident that the Complainant purchased one mobile handset from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.850/- on 02.09.2015. Annnexure C-2 is a warranty card showing that the handset in question carried a warranty of 12 months. At Pg. No.6 of the paper book, there is a job-sheet dated 02.09.2016, showing the handset is physically damaged and warranty status is mentioned as out of warranty. An amount of Rs.580/- has been mentioned as approved by customer and against warranty remarks it is mentioned as Tempered. 

 

6.      There is thus, clear mention of an amount of Rs.530/- as estimate cost for the repair of physically damaged/ tempered handset. It is important to note that date of purchase of the handset as per Annexure C-1 is 02.09.2015 and as per job-sheet available at Pg. No.6 of the paper-book, the handset being physically damaged and tempered with was submitted to Opposite Party No.2 on 02.09.2016 i.e. exactly after 1 year of its purchase. As per the warranty card (Annexure C-2), it is clear that the handset in question has warranty of 12 months only. Now, it was for the Complainant only that he had to get his physically damaged/ tempered handset repaired after paying an amount of Rs.530/- as per demand of Opposite Party No.2. But, he preferred to file the present Complaint instead. The Complainant has to stand on his own legs. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to allow the present Complaint. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

7.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

8.      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, 2017                                           

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

       PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”