State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Kumar vs Lava International on 7 November, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 1183 of 2016 Date of Institution: 06.12.2016 Date of Decision: 07.11.2017 Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Gyan Chand, Profession Advocate, Works at District Courts Kaithal, resident of House No.657/1, Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector 64, Noida -201301, Uttar Pradesh (India) through its Manager/Managing Director. 2. Xolo Service Center, Vishnu Market, Basement of Micromax Showroom, Near MH-1 Mobile Accessories, Kaithal -136027 through its Service Provider/Proprietor. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member. Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. Present: None for the appellant. None for the respondent No.2 (Service of respondent No.1 dispensed with) O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL) This complainant's appeal is directed against the order dated November 03rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short 'District Forum'), whereby complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.
2. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of the complainant as well as respondent No.2. On the last four consecutive dates of hearing, the complainant did not appear. Notice to Lava International Limited-respondent No.1 was not issued because the complainant sought relief qua Xolo Service Center-respondent No.2 only. Notice upon respondent No.2 was duly served upon but nobody appeared on its behalf. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after going through the case file.
3. The grievance of the complainant was that he purchased a mobile handset of XOLO make on January 03rd, 2015 from City Heart Mobile Shop, Kaithal. After expiry of warranty period, the battery of mobile handset became defective. The complainant approached Xolo Service Center, Kaithal-opposite party No.2 to replace the battery. The opposite party No.2 refused to provide the battery due to its shortage.
4. The opposite parties, in their, written version denied the averments of the complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on April 23rd, 2016 with the complaint of auto switch off of the mobile handset. The engineer of the company checked the mobile handset and found some defects. The defects were removed and the software of the mobile handset was updated. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 on May 26th, 2016. The defect reported by the complainant was duly resolved. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
5. Indisputably, the mobile handset of the complainant was out of warranty. The only grievance of the complainant was that the opposite party No.2 did not provide battery of the mobile handset to him. There was no defect in the mobile handset. Merely, the opposite party No.2 did not provide the battery to the complainant, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of this, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal is also dismissed.
Announced 07.11.2017 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK