BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.303/15.
Date of instt.: 07.12.2015.
Date of Decision: 24.10.2016.
Sukhwinder Singh S/o Ram Sarup Saini, R/o near Om Palace Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Gupta Telecom through its prop. Sanjeev Gupta, near Dhola Darwaja Siwan.
- Sony Care Centre through its proprietor Pardeep Telecom Ambedkar Chowk, near Old Bus Stand Kurukshetra.
- M.D. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pawan Gautam, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sukhdev Malik, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Sony Xperia C3 mobile set for sum of Rs.21,000/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.56 dt. 02.01.2015. It is alleged that in the month of September, 2015 the colour screen of said mobile set started faded due to manufacturing defect. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Op No.1 to remove the above-said defect or to replace the mobile set but the Op No.1 lingered on the matter. It is further alleged that on 26.11.2015, the complainant went to the service-centre of Op No.2, who told the complainant that the said defect required replacement of colour screen of the mobile set and the same will be cost to Rs.8500/-. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the details of the handset are missing from the complaint; that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set; that the present complaint is pre-mature and the complainant has never come to the authorized service-centre since the date of its purchase for any service grievance whatsoever, so, no services could be provided to the complainant as there lies no service history regarding the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence on 28.07.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW1/B and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure-R4 and closed evidence on 27.09.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant on 02.01.2015 became defective in the month of September, 2015 as the colour screen of said mobile set started faded due to manufacturing defect. He further argued that on 26.11.2015, the complainant went to the service-centre of Op No.2, who told the complainant that the said defect required replacement of colour screen of the mobile set and the same will be cost to Rs.8500/-. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant never came to the authorized service-centre since the date of its purchase for any service grievance whatsoever, so, no services could be provided to the complainant as there lies no service history regarding the same.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the complainant alleges in his complaint that on 26.11.2015, he went to Op No.2 and Op No.2 told the cost of replacement of the colour screen as Rs.8500/- but no such document has been placed on the file which could prove that the complainant contacted the Op No.2 on 26.11.2015. The complainant placed an estimate, Ex.C4, which is dt. 09.04.2016 and in this document, it has been specifically mentioned by the Ops that the mobile set was out of warranty and display media circuit damaged. The mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 02.01.2015 became defective after the expiry of warranty period as is clear from the estimate dt. 09.04.2016, Ex.C4. Moreover, the mobile set in question is not defective rather the same is damaged. The complainant has also put his signatures on the said estimate. So, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations alleged in the complainant. Mere allegations are not sufficient, those are necessary to be proved by cogent evidence. One, who asserts, must prove. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.24.10.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
