Advance Digital Technology V/S Shri. Pankaj Sharma
Shri. Pankaj Sharma filed a consumer case on 27 Jul 2018 against Advance Digital Technology in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/353/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Aug 2018.
Delhi
North East
CC/353/2015
Shri. Pankaj Sharma - Complainant(s)
Versus
Advance Digital Technology - Opp.Party(s)
27 Jul 2018
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST
F-249, 2nd Floor, Wazirabad Road, Near Adarsh Public School, Khajuri Khas,
Delhi 110094
Gionee Mobile Smart Phone
Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd.
F-2 Block No. B-1, Ground Floor
Mohan Coop Inds. Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.
Opposite Parties
DATE OF INSTITUTION:
09.10.2015
RESERVED FOR ORDER:
24.07.2018
DATE OF DECISION:
27.07.2018
N.K. Sharma, President
Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member
Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member
Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-
ORDER
The complainant had submitted vide the present complaint that he had purchased a mobile phone of Gionee Company i.e. OP2 (manufacturer) from Wizard Digital Computers Pvt Ltd., C-6/232 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053 bearing Model No. S 5.5 and IMEI No. 862724024412860 for an amount of Rs. 21,000/-vide invoice no. 37697 on 20.09.2014. OP1 is the authorized service centre of OP2 and OP2 had assured the complainant at the time of purchase that OP2 is providing best “After Sale Service” and recommended purchase to mobile in question of their company to the complainant. It has been further submitted by the complainant that after some time the above mobile set started giving problem regarding charging of battery of mobile phone and therefore the complainant went to OP1 and deposited the said mobile on 26.08.2015 to OP1 for service of the problem and since the said mobile was under warranty, it was assured by OP1 that the mobile defect shall be repaired within a period of three days. However when after three days the complainant went to OP1 to collect the mobile set, no satisfactory answer was given by OP1 to the complainant and after several requests, the complainant told him to either solve the defect of the mobile or return the mobile value to the complainant as OP1 was not providing the efficient service to the complainant. But OP1 demanded Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant raised the objection on the illegal demand of OP1 stating that the said mobile phone is under warranty, OP1 told the complainant that there is a major fault in the mobile and refused to give service of said mobile under warranty and that the complainant shall have to pay all the expenses for the service of the defect in the mobile phone. The complainant has stated that the subject mobile is in possession of OP1 since the date of its deposit i.e. 26.08.2015 till date. It has been submitted by the complainant that the illegal and unlawful conduct of OP is unfair trade practice and is deficiency in service and therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs. 21,000/- i.e. value of mobile set to the complainant with interest alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience by the OPs. The complainant has attached a copy of invoice bearing no. 37697 dated 20.09.2014, towards the purchase of the above said mobile phone, (Make Gionee S-5.5 – IMEI No. 862724024412860), copy of service job sheet bearing no. GC15800119168 dated 26.08.2015 towards the above said mobile set wherein it is mentioned that there is charging problem and handset is not charging and further the handset unit bears a warranty period of 12 months beginning from the date of purchase of unit and six months beginning from the date of purchase of unit in respect of accessories i.e. battery etc. It is also mentioned that the consumer must produce original warranty card alongwith invoice to avail the warranty coverage / benefits.
Notice was issued to OPs on 09.10.2015 for appearance before the Forum on 09.11.2015 and the same was delivered to both the OPs. Despite service, OP1 & OP2 didn’t appear before the Forum and as such the OP1 & OP2 were proceeded against ex parte on 16.12.2015.
Complainant has filed Ex-parte affidavit of evidence and written arguments wherein he reiterated his grievance as mentioned in his complaint and further prayed for directions to OPs to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges to him in addition to relief already prayed for in the complaint.
We have heard oral arguments of the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions. We are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal by the OPs, the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs in failure to repair and return the mobile in question which they were under obligation as manufacturer and service centre but instead kept the same in unlawful custody and demanded money for repair despite the same being under warranty. Therefore we direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the complainant towards the purchase of mobile phone. In addition of above, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the compensation and Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation charge is also directed to be payable to complainant by OP1 & OP2 jointly and severally. Let the order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 9% interest p.a. shall also be imposed on the OPs payable jointly and severally by the OP1 and OP2 to the complainant on the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- from the date of passing of this order till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
File be consigned to record room.
(Announced on 27.07.2018)
(N.K. Sharma)
President
(Sonica Mehrotra)
Member
(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.