DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.479 of 14-09-2016

Decided on 31-01-2017

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Bhagwan Dass R/o House No.136, Village Aklia Kalan, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M.S Chawla, Telecom Onwer Manjit Singh, Main Bazaar, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

2.Intex Technologies (I) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020, India.

3.Service Centre of Intex, Shop No.16, Krishana Market Near Hotel Krishana Continental, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar in person.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Inderjit Singh Mann, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.2 & 3: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Sanjeev Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M.S Chawla and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Intex Aqua Power Plus mobile handset from opposite party No.1 on 4.8.2015.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset suffered faults. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 for repair of his mobile handset, it retained the same, but the mobile handset is not returned so far. He number of times approached opposite party No.3, but to no effect.

   On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite party No.3 to return the mobile handset after repair. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 put its appearance whereas none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

   Opposite party No.1 contested the complaint by filing its written version. In its written version, contesting opposite party has raised the legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; locus-standi and cause-of-action to file this complaint and that it has been unnecessary dragged into litigation. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint and same is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous.

5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one mobile handset from contesting opposite party, but all other averments are denied. In the end, contesting opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. Complainant and opposite party No.1 were asked to produce evidence.

7. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 14.9.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C2); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh dated 4.1.2017, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the file carefully.

10. The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by the complainant that job sheet, (Ex.C2) proves that the mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.3. The complainant has deposed on oath that his mobile handset is not returned after repair. This evidence is unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting opposite party has submitted that contesting opposite party has been unnecessary dragged into litigation. No relief has been claimed against it. The complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party No.3 to get his mobile handset repaired. Therefore, complaint is liable to dismissed qua contesting opposite party with cost.

12. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

13. As pointed out by learned counsel for contesting opposite party, only prayer of the complainant is that his mobile handset be got returned from opposite party No.3 after repair. The complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet, (Ex.C2) to prove that his mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.3. No relief is claimed against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. This Forum cannot go beyond the relief claimed by the complainant. Opposite party No.3 has not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted against opposite party No.3 only and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 is directed to handover the mobile handset in question to the complainant after due repair as per terms and conditions of the warranty card within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    31-01-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member