Delhi

North

RBT/CC/189/2022

RAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGGARWAL ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2024

ORDER

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

In the matter of

Sh.Raveen  Kumar

S/o Shri Mohan lal

R/o H.No.C-110, Sharma Enclave

Village Mubarakpur Dabas

Delhi-110081                                                                                            ...Complainant

vs

Aggarwal Electronics

1-1/17, Budh Vihar, Phase-I

Delhi-110086                                                                                       ...Opposite Party-1

 

M/s Khushi Communication

5A/1, First floor

Tilak Opp. Police Station

Metro Pillar No.492

New Delhi-110018                                                                             ...Opposite Party-2

 

Motorola Excellence Centre

415/2, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road

Sector-14, Near Maharana Pratap Chowk

Gurugram, Haryana-122001                                                            ...Opposite Party-3

ORDER

23/08/2024

 

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Raveen Kumar, the complainant against Aggarwal Electronics, Seller as OP-1, M/s. Khushi Communication (service centre), OP-2 and Motorola Excellence Centre (manufacturer) as OP-3 with the allegations of deficiency in services.
2. On 08/08/2017, the complainant went to the shop of OP-1 to purchase a new mobile handset. The executive suggested the complainant to purchase Moto M4-64 X T1663 Grey mobile by describing new advance features.
3.   The complainant has stated that believing the representation of executive of OP-1, he purchased the Moto M mobile for which invoice no. 356, dated 08/08/2017 for  Rs. 16,999/- was issued.
4.   In the month of April 2018, there was problem in charging and the mobile was dead. Complainant approached OP-3, where, he was asked to visit OP-2. On 07/04/2018, the battery of the handset was replaced by OP-2 and returned it on 09/04/2018.
5.   Again in the month of August 2018, there was same problem in the handset for which complainant approached OP-2 on 08/08/2018, but this time OP-2 refused to accept the handset. On 09/08/2018, the complainant again visited OP-2 and job sheet no. 079032180809002 was issued. This time the battery of the handset was replaced upon payment of Rs. 1,000/- vide invoice no. 1344 dated 16/08/2018.
6.    On 20/08/2018, again the handset was deposited with OP-2 for which job sheet no. S0IN0790321808200001 was issued. It has been alleged by the complainant that the handset was under warranty period till 03/11/2018 but OP-3 avoided repairs on one pretext on the other and the handset is still lying with OP-2.
7. Alleging deficiency in services against opposite parties, the present complaint, with the prayer for directions to OP to:

1. Refund Rs. 16,999/- being the invoice amount.
2. Pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony & harassment.
3. Rs. 1,100/- as litigation charges.

8. Complainant has annexed copy of invoice dated 08/08/2017, job sheet dated 09/08/2018, and invoice dated 16/08/2018 for replacement of battery, service order dated 20/08/2018 with the complaint.
9.    Notice of the present complaint was issued to opposite parties. OP-2 & OP-3 did not put appearance despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28/11/2018 and 17/01/2019 respectively.
10.     Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1. It has been submitted that OP-1 is the authorised dealer of OP-3 and vide invoice dated 03/08/2017, the handset was sold to the complainant.  After sale services like warranty, wear, tear & replacement and manufacturing defects are dealt by the manufacturer. It has been denied that there is deficiency in services on their part, rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.
11.     Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant, denying all the contents of the Written Statement and reiterating those of the complaint.
12.     Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant. He has deposed the contents of the complaint. OP-1 has got examined Sh. Gaurav Bansal, Authorised Representative, on their behalf. He has also repeated the submissions made in their Written Statement.  He has got exhibited authority letter as Ex.OP/1.
13. We have perused the material placed on record as none appeared on behalf of the parties. Complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 08/08/2017 for Rs. 16,999/-. He has also placed the job sheets dated 09/08/2018:

Warranty Status: Out of warranty

Customer complaint code: C0019 – Power on/off issues, C0028 – charging/battery issue.

Service Notes: 1 DEAD PHONE, NO CHARGING ISSUE, OVERHEATING, NETWORK ISSUE (NETWORK ANTENNA DAMAGE AT MOTHER BOARD, PHYSICALLY DAMAGE) SCRATCHES ON PHONE, GAPE IN BODY, BODY COLOR FADED, SIM TRAY SUBMIT (PREET/UMESH SIR)

 

14.    It is observed that in service order the handset is out of warranty. The complainant has stated that the handset was covered under warranty till 03/11/2018; he has not filed warranty terms & conditions to show that his handset was still under warranty or was covered under extended warranty. When the handset is out of warranty, the complainant is liable to pay to the repairs.
15.   In both the jobsheets, the service note bears mother board damaged. This implies that complainant has got the handset repaired from unauthorised service centre which has resulted in physical as well as damage to the motherboard. At the same time he has also not filed any document in support of his allegation that the handset was repaired in the month of April 2018 and the same was returned on 09/04/2018 to substantiate that the handset had to be repaired when it was in warranty.
16. It is settled principle of law that the complainant has to prove his own case and the jobsheet as well as the invoice for battery change are after the expiry of standard warranty period of one year which the complainant has failed to prove.  Hence, we do not find any deficiency in services against any of the OPs. 
17. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint, we find it to be devoid of merits and the same is dismissed without order to cost. 

18.    Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya )         Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                                 Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                            President