DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Govt. House No.16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, BATHINDA- 151001, PUNJAB.

CC No.565 of 2014

Date of Institution: 04.09.2014 Date of Disposal : 27.04.2015

Daler Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Sh. Resham Singh, R/o Sarvesh Diviya Hospital, Near Namdev Gate, Bathinda.

..... Complainant

                                                      Versus

Shiv Bhole Telecom, Street No.6, Opposite Imperial Motors, Nai Basti, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

Unitech Computerized Mobile Service Centre, Gali Bangi House, Teachers Home, Mehna Marg, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda through its Manager/Partner/Proprietor.

HTC India Pvt. Ltd., (Dopod), G 4 BPTP Park Centre, Sector 30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon 122 001 (Haryana) through its Managing Director/ Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

............

Present:-

For complainant : Sh.A.S.Sekhon, Advocate.

For OPs : Exparte.

Quorum:-

Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

ORDER:-

Surinder Mohan, President

Contd.........2

: 2 :

Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased one mobile handset of HTC make, Model Desire T 328 bearing IMEI No. 356062620524227 and 356062052894235 vide invoice dated 5.7.13 worth Rs.14,000/- from OP No. 1, manufactured by OP No. 3. OP No. 2 is the authorized service centre. Mobile carries one year warranty, It was assured by OP No.1 that if any defect occurs during the warranty period, the same would be rectified otherwise the mobile would be replaced with a new one.  After about 3-4 months of its purchase, mobile started creating problems such as automatically switched off, screen used to get blank and mobile set used to hang.  Cousin brother of complainant namely Simarjeet Singh took  the mobile to OP No. 2 on the advise of OP No. 1.  Engineer of OP No. 2 checked the mobile and after doing minor repairs returned it to the brother of complainant and assured him that no problem will occur in future. No job sheet was issued at that time.  In the month of March, 2014 above problems alongwith some  new problems occurred in the hand set. Cousin Brother of complainant again approached OP No. 2.  OP No. 2 after checking the mobile retained the same with him and issued job Card dated 6-3-14 and asked him to take back mobile hand set after 2-3 days.  Mobile hand set was taken back after 10 days but OP No. 2 did not rectify the defects properly.  Thereafter brother of complainant again approached OP No. 2 on 29-6-14 and complained about said defects.  OP No. 2 again retained the mobile vide job sheet dated 29-6-14. Brother of complainant took delivery of mobile hand set from Op No. 2 and at that time OP No. 2 assured him that now they have rectified all the defects and also replaced some defective parts with new one.  It was further assured that mobile hand set will not create any problem in future and the same has become new with Contd.........3

: 3 :

three months extended warranty.  Brother of complainant requested OP No. 2 that if there is any manufacturing defect, then replace  mobile hand set with new one, but OP No. 2 assured that if there is any problem in future, they will replace mobile hand set with new one. Complainant alleged that his brother started using the said mobile hand set and found that problems were still existing.  Thereafter, again on 24-7-2014,  complainant approached  OP No. 2 and requested to replace hand set with new one but OP No. 2 instead of replacing  the hand set, retained it and asked him to visit after 2-3 days.  After 2-3 days brother of complainant visited OP No. 2 and he was asked to come on 10-8-2014 and when complainant visited on 10.8.2014,  OP No. 2 conveyed that there is some manufacturing defect in the hand set which cannot be repaired.  Brother of complainant requested OP No. 2 either to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund its price, but every time OP No. 2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other just to harass complainant.  Act and conduct of OPs clearly show that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs due to which complainant is suffering mental tension, agony, harassment and financial loss.  Hence, the complainant has filed present complaint seeking directions to OPs either to replace  mobile hand set in question or refund its price i.e. Rs. 14,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. On notice none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1&2. Notice sent to OP No.3 through registered cover not received back either served or unserved.  None appeared on behalf of OP No. 3. Accordingly, all OPs were proceeded against exparte.

3. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered documents Ex.C-1 Contd.........4

: 4 :

short affidavit of Daler Singh;  Ex.C-2 Bill dated 5-7-13; Ex.C-3 Job Sheet dated 6-3-2014; Ex.C-4 Job Sheet dated 29-6-14; Ex. C-5 Job Sheet dated 24-7-14.

4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone

through the record very carefully.

5. In this case none of the OPs have contested the complaint. As per bill Ex.C-2 dated 5.7.13, complainant purchased one mobile from OP No.1 for Rs.14,000/-. The IMEI numbers of this mobile set are 35606 26205 24227 and 35606 20528 94235. There are three job sheets on the file where the name of customer is recorded as “Simarjit Singh. Complainant has taken a plea that Simarjit Singh is his cousin brother and Simarjit Singh is using this mobile, as has been pleaded in Para No.10 of the complaint. All the three job sheets also reflect IMEI numbers of the said mobile which was presented for repair to Service Center i.e. OP No.2. IMEI numbers reflected in Ex.C-3 and C-5 tally with each other but these numbers do not tally with IMEI number reflected on the bill Ex.C-2. Similarly, IMEI number reflected on job sheet Ex.C-4 does not tally with IMEI number reflected on the bill. It shows that service center was handling some other mobile other than sold to Complainant through bill Ex.C-2.

6. As per pleadings, Simarjit Singh is using this mobile. It is Simarjit Singh who had been approaching the service center from time to time but no affidavit of Simarjit Singh has been brought on the file. Not only this Complainant has not led legal evidence in support of his case. He has merely filed a short affidavit as Ex.C-1. Hon'ble  Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in a case with title S.Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. reported in III(2005) CPJ 642 was Contd.........5

: 5 :

pleased to observe that:

“complainant instead of leading proper evidence merely deposed that contents in complaint be read as evidence by way of affidavit, such affidavit cannot be treated as legal evidence, no reliance can be placed on mere pleadings contained in complaint.”

7. Therefore, the short affidavit of Daler Singh is not a legal evidence. In the absence of legal evidence this complaint fails and the same stands dismissed.

8. Before parting, we would like to observe that since OPs have not contested the complaint, it remained unanswered how IMEI numbers differ on job sheets from that of Bill Ex.C-2. Different IMEI numbers on Job sheets and Bill has created a confusion. In such circumstances, a right is given to Complainant to approach the Service center for repair of mobile free of costs. Complainant will approach the Service center within 15 days from receipt of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced:

27.04.2015

Jarnail Singh, Surinder Mohan,

Member. President.