State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anubhav Singla vs Ware House, The Mobile Store Ltd. on 15 January, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 21 of 2016 Date of Institution : 13.01.2016 Date of Decision : 15.01.2016 Anubhav Singla S/o Shri Sunil Singla, r/o House No.1527, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana. ......Appellant/Complainant V e r s u s Ware House, The Mobile Store Ltd., Booth No.393, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, through its Store Manager. (Deleted vide order dated 06.11.2015 by the Forum). The Mobile Store (Essar Group) Head Office, Essar Techno Park Building-B, 1st Floor, Pyramid Infotech Parkswan Mill Compound, LBS Marg Kurla (W), Mumbai-400070, Maharashtra, through its Directors. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
Argued by:Appellant, in person.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT The appellant had filed a consumer complaint bearing no.609 of 2015, against the respondents. It was his case that one Anita Bhugra had purchased a mobile handset, through internet, vide www.olx.in on 28.12.2013. The appellant, thereafter, purchased the abovesaid mobile handset from Anita Bhugra. The mobile handset was under warranty upto 16.04.2014. The mobile handset started giving problems, which necessitated its repair and for that purpose, it was handed over to respondent no.1, on 06.01.2014, against receipt. It was promised that mobile handset will be repaired within 10 days. Thereafter, communication continued interse, the complainant and respondent no.1, but mobile handset was not repaired, which compelled him to file the above consumer complaint.
It is necessary to mention here that notice of the complaint was sent to the respondents, returnable for 06.11.2015, on which date qua respondent no.1, it was returned with the remarks that it (respondent no.1) had left the premises, at which, notice was sent. The complainant, of his own, made an endorsement stating that " he give up opposite party no.1 because it has shut its working from here"
Opposite party no.2 was proceeded exparte, by raising presumption of service, against it, as none put in appearance on its behalf, before the Forum.
The appellant led evidence, in support of his case.
After hearing the appellant in person, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum allowed the complaint filed by the appellant, on 28.12.2015, granting him following relief:-
"In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed:-
[a] To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.
[b] To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.
The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs."
Respondent no.2/Opposite party no.2 was directed to make above payment.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, claiming that the Forum has committed an error, by not ordering respondent no.2 to return the mobile handset to him.
We have heard the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant in person, and the evidence, on record, we are not inclined to issue any further direction, with regard to return of mobile handset to him, by respondent no.2, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
It is evident on record that the mobile handset was purchased by one Anita Bhugra, from whom, as per the appellant, he had purchased the same. No receipt executed by original purchaser, is on record, to support above contention. Be that maybe, it is not in dispute that the mobile handset was purchased by the original owner, through internet i.e. by ordering the same through www.olx.in. The said service provider was not impleaded as an opposite party, in the complaint and there is nothing on record to show that respondent no.2 was an authorized representative of the said service provider. Further, as per facts on record, defective mobile handset was handed over for repairs, to respondent no.1, without any intimation to respondent no.2. Correspondence qua return of mobile handset continued between the appellant and respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 was not taken into confidence, at any point of time. Respondent No.1 is the party, to whom, directions, if any, could have been issued to return the mobile handset to the appellant. However, the appellant of his own, give up respondent no.1/opposite party no.1, by making an endorsement on the complaint, on 06.11.2015. If that is so, nothing can be done at this stage, by this Commission. Had the mobile handset been handed over to respondent no.2, by the appellant, this Commission, could have definitely passed an appropriate directions, in that regard. No ground, whatsoever, has been made out, by the appellant, to incline this Commission, to accept this appeal.
No other point, was urged, by the appellant, in person.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
15.01.2016 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg