State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri K.L. Sharma vs Janta Electronics & Others on 19 March, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 305/2007 Date of Decision: 19.03.2012 Shri K.L. Sharma S/O Shri R.P. Sharma, At present serving as Assistant Engineer, Civil Operation Circle, HPSEB, Anu, District Hamirpur, H.P. Appellant Versus 1. Janta Electronics, Near Cinema Chowk Bhojpur, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Nokia Care Centre, Indira Market, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Nokia India Pvt. 2nd Floor, Raddision Hotel NH-8, Mahipur, New Delhi. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. Yashveer Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) This appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by appellant, K.L. Sharma, is directed against the order dated 23rd June, 2007, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint which he instituted against the respondents alleging deficiency in service and defect in mobile phone purchased by him from respondent No.1, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant purchased a Nokia 3230 mobile handset from respondent No.1, for a sum of `9800/-, on 15.09.2006. The handset had been working well initially, but after a few days, it developed some snag and stopped working. Appellant went to the respondent No.1, who allegedly told that there was a minor defect, which will be removed. He sent the handset to respondent No.2, who is authorized repairer of Nokia cell phones. He demanded a sum of `1500/- for carrying out the repair. Since, the defect appeared within the warranty period of one year, appellant refused to pay the repair charges demanded by respondent No.2. Appellant complained to respondent No.3, manufacturer of the mobile handset. None of the three respondents did anything to replace the cell phone or to remove the defect. According to the complainant, the set was either spurious or it had some manufacturing defect.
3. According to the respondents, set was in perfect working order when supplied to the appellant. But, when he brought it for repair with a complaint that it had stopped working, it was found to be liquid locked and this was due to negligence or carelessness handling of the set by the appellant, because of which it developed the aforesaid defect.
4. Learned District Forum, Mandi, dismissed the complaint holding that there was nothing on record showing that the handset, in question, had any manufacturing defect or it was spurious, as alleged by the appellant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that when initially respondent No.1 had stated that the mobile set had a minor defect and because of that defect it had stopped functioning, it cannot be said that it was liquid locked and that it got so locked, because of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the appellant. There is no evidence in support of the appellants contention that when he initially went to respondent No.1, with the complaint that the cell phone had stopped functioning, the latter told him that the defect was minor. Even appellants own affidavit is not there in support of the contention. The fact that the cell phone was liquid locked, stands proved even from appellants own affidavit. He tendered in evidence affidavit of an expert technician namely Raj Kumar, who allegedly examined the mobile set in July, 2007. In the affidavit of said Raj Kumar, it is stated that the set, in question, was liquid locked, though according to him, it was partially so locked and could be repaired.
7. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed,
8. Disposed of.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) {Retd.} President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member March 19, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?