Haryana

StateCommission

A/614/2017

SANDEEP SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHIT ELECTRICALS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       First Appeal No.614 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 19.05.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 17.04.2023

 

Sandeep Sachdeva S/o Shri Chetan Sawroop R/o H. No. 1F-108, NIT, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Rohit Electricals, 1F-17 Market No.1 Near Bus Stand, NIT, Faridabad -121001 through its Proprietor/Principal Officer.
2. M/s. Lucky Communication, Shop No. 54, Ist floor Neelam Flyover, NIT Faridabad-121001
2.  
3. Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301 U.P through its Director.
4. Balaji Distributors, Shop No.10-11, Tigaon Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad through its authorized Signatory/Principal Officer.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    None for the appellant.

                   Service of respondent No. 1 already dispensed with.

Respondents No. 2 and 4 already proceeded against exparte.

Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

 

                                                 ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 01 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Challenge in this appeal No.614 of 2017 is to the legality of the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.185 of 2014.

3.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant has alleged that he purchased mobile handset (Lava Mobile handset) on 02.06.2014 for Rs.8000/- from OP No. 1 vide Bill No. 1740 dated 02.06.2014. It started giving problems from the next day. He called opposite party (OP) No.1 about the problems. OP No. 1 assured him that defective mobile will be replaced with new one. On 18.06.2014, OP No. 1 asked complainant to deposit defective mobile phone with OP No.2 and complainant deposited it with all accessories on 19.06.2014. A job sheet was prepared by representative of OP No. 2. On 26.06.2014, complainant met OP No.2 who refused to replace the mobile phone in question or to repair it and handset is lying in custody of OP No. 2. Thus, by alleging deficiency in service of Ops; complaint was filed.

4.      In response, OP No. 1 denied that there was deficiency in service on its part and asserted that he is only a seller and has no liability towards defect, of sold product. All liability, in case of any defect in mobile phone, lay upon manufacturer and authorized service center and not on seller. Mobile phone was sold on “AS IT AS” basis. It is pleaded that complainant purchased mobile after fully satisfying himself regarding its working. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      In stance of opposite parties No. 2 to 4; they have denied deficiency in service on their part and asserted that complainant approached service center/OP No.2 only once and Engineer of the company made the unit alright, but complaint was adamant for refund. It is plea that OP No. 2 to 4 are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. Complaint has been filed without any expert opinion which will prove that mobile phone is not working properly. Thus, OP No. 2 to 4 have also asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.      Evidence of OP No.1 closed vide order dated 29.01.2016 and other parties to lis led their respective evidence.

7.      After analyzing the evidence brought on record, the learned District Consumer Commission, Faridabad vide order dated 29.03.2017 directed the OP No.2 to repair the mobile in question. OP Nos.1 to 4 have further directed to pay to the complainant, jointly and severally, Rs.2200/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2200/- towards litigation expenses.

8.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

9.      Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 as urged that there was no manufacturing defect in the handset. Out of Rs.8,000/- (cost of Unit) complainant has already been compensated with an amount of Rs.4400/- (Rs.2200/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2200/- for litigation expenses). As per contention the unit is still lying with complainant. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further urged that there could be no further indulgences in favour of the complainant in these circumstances.

10.    In the proceedings of this appeal; appellant has not appeared on many dates. On perusal of entire record and in the light of submissions of learned counsel for respondent No. 3; this Commission is of the firm opinion that there could not be any interference in the impugned order dated 29.03.2017 of District Commission. There was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, as complainant could not bring any cogent evidence in this regard. Even, though job sheet Ex.C-2 of Lucky Communication i.e. respondent No. 2 recites words “OFF. MANUFACTURING DEFECT”; still at legal pedestal the onus lay upon complainant only to establish the nature of defect, as it was specific case set up by him in complaint. He cannot simply rely upon the recital in job sheet to that effect which too is not specific about nature of defect in mobile phone handset. The elementary rule of Burden of Proof is enshrined u/s 101 of Evidence Act, which are reproduced below:-

101 Burden of Proof:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

11.    Consequently, recital will not relieve the complainant, of the onus, to prove the nature of defect. Consequently, District Commission has rightly arrived at conclusion that complainant is unable to bring reliable proof on record about type of manufacturing defect in his mobile phone. No interference in impugned order dated 29.03.2017 of District Commission is warranted. Hence, appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

12.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

13.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.      File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of decision: 17^th April, 2023

 

                                                                                                Naresh Katyal                                                                                                                     Judicial Member                            

 

D.K