Delhi

North East

CC/197/2014

Avnish Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.197/14

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Avnish Kumar R/o C-32, Gali No. 3, Bhagat Singh Colony, Usmanpur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1       2         3	M/s. Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. B-33, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 44, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092   M/s. Maa Vaishnavi Services Door No. U-157, FF, Opp. Metro Pillar 29, Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092   M/s. Samsung Company, 2nd 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002
		Opposite Party
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	27-05-2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	04-11-2015

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

1. As per the Complainant, on 09.10.2013 he has purchased a mobile phone model no. GT-19152ZKA-Black of OP3 company from OP1 for a sum of Rs. 23,500/- . On 10.03.2014 touch pad of the phone stopped functioning. Complainant approached OP2 i.e. service centre of OP3. OP2 telling that the mobile phone is damaged demanded Rs. 5646/- for repairing the same. OPs have mislead him and demanded money while infact Mobile phone is not damaged and is under warranty in which condition he is not liable to pay any money to OP2. OPs are harassing the Complainant by sending him to one another. Complainant has prayed for refund of the price with Rs. 10,000/- compensation.
2. After notice, OP1 appeared, while OP2 and OP3 chose not to appear before this Forum, despite service of notice on them and giving enough opportunity, leading to Ex-parte proceedings against them. OP1 by filing its reply states that as per policy of OP3 after sale service/warranty are being taken care of by OP3 and its authorized service centres. It being retailer only owes no responsibility and whatever the action required shall be taken by OP2 & OP3.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence alongwith supporting documents.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. Retail invoice shows that Complainant has duly purchased the mobile set by paying Rs. 23,500/-. Estimate dated 18.03.2014, issued by OP2, states parts needs replacement to make set functional, showing the set damaged and required Rs. 5646/- for repairing the same.
6. Allegations in the complaint are not specifically denied by OP1 whereas the OP2 and OP3 not coming forward for their defence. As such, facts alleged in the complaint are uncontroverted by any of the OPs. Thus, all the allegations being not controverted by any of the OPs are deemed to be proved. However, it is observed that complainant used the mobile phone continuously for 5 months without any complaint. In the circumstances, holding OP2 & OP3 guilty of deficiency in service, we direct them jointly and severally, to repair the mobile phone, free of cost, within 15 days from the receipt of this order. We also award Rs. 7,000/- towards compensation for harassment and litigation cost. In case the said mobile phone is not repaired within this period or is unrepairable, OPs shall refund two third of the cost of the mobile phone, received as per invoice, in addition to compensation etc as aforesaid jointly & severally.
7. 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: - 04-11-2015

 

(N.K.Sharma)     President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member