Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/226/2022

SACHIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGARWAL ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 226/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Sachin S/o Sh. Pramod R/o K20 C, Krishan Vihar, Delhi-110086		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.	Agarwal Electronics D 46 A, Krishan Vihar, Delhi-110086   Service Centre HCL Rohini 156, Aggarwal City Plaza, Manglam Place, Sector 3, Near M2K Rohini, Delhi-110085   Motorola Mobility India Pvt., Ltd. 12th Floor, Tower D, DLF Cyber Greens DLF Cyber City, Gurugram Haryana 122002		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		01.08.18 25.09.23 12.12.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the on 03.08.17 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 and purchased a Motorola Moto Z 2 mobile vide IMEI no. 358225070358453 for sum of Rs. 27,999/- against invoice no. 3/285 dated 03.08.17. On 16.07.18 the above handset get faulty at the time of charging. Thereafter on 17.07.18 Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and handed over the handset to Opposite Party No.2 for repairing against job sheet no. SOIN0231201807170053 and Opposite Party No.2 agreed to return to the handset within 7 to 10 days. The Complainant stated that after 10 days Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for getting the handset but official of Opposite Party No.2 refused for delivery of handset stating that warranty of handset is expired and according to Complainant warranty was valid till 02.08.18. The Complainant stated that he made various calls to Opposite Party No.2 and made several visits requesting to return his mobile but all in vain. The Complainant has also contacted manager of Opposite Party No.2 several times requesting to return his mobile but they keep on avoiding the matter on one pretext or other. The Complainant stated that his mobile was not repaired despite having warranty of said mobile. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to refund the cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs. 27,999/- with interest and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 1,100/- for litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No 2 and 3 despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 20.01.20 and 08.10.18 respectively.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement and stated that the Opposite Party is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3 and competent to sale mobile related products of Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 03.08.17 sale out a Motorola Z 2 Play cell to Complainant. It is further submitted that the after sale services like warranty, wear tear repair, replacement, manufacturing defect is directly deal by the company through its customer cares and the sellers like Opposite Party No.1 shall remains no role after sale. Further Opposite Party No.1 stated that in the present case Complainant never approached Opposite Party No.1 at any point of time. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 has no concern or knowledge about the entire version as alleged by the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein, the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased mobile phone of Opposite Party No.3 from Opposite Party No.1 for the sum of Rs. 27,999/- on 03.08.17. On 16.08.17 said phone stop working and Complainant approach Opposite Party No.2 for repairing the same and Opposite Party No.2 agreed to return the handset within 7 to 10 days. When Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 for delivery of the said phone after repair Opposite Party No.2 refused to deliver the handset stating that warranty of handset is expired. It is submitted by the Complainant that warranty of the said phone was valid till 2018. It is further submitted by the Complainant that he made several visits and call to Opposite Party No.2 to return is mobile phone but all in vain. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
7. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that he is merely a authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3 and it is admitted that he sold the said phone to the Complainant on 03.08.17. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 is that in case of any problem regarding phone Opposite Party No.3 is liable for after sale service/ repair etc and Complainant never approach him for any defect in the said phone. Hence there is no deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
8. Since Opposite Party No.2 and 3 failed to appeared before the commission. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party No.2 and 3 did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
9. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone of Rs. 27,999/- to the Complainant with interest    @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.3 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.
10. Order announced on 12.12.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President