Delhi

North East

CC/435/2014

Akash Maheshwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

All cell Solution - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 435/14

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.A. Zaidi

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. N.A. Alvi

                       

In the matter of:

Sh. Akash Maheshwari

S/o Sh. S.L. Maheshwari

R/o IX/6663, Janta Gali

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1. All Cell Solution

7/274, Swami Amardev Marg,

M.C.D. School Gali

(Near Indra Park), Jwala Nagar,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.

 

2. Jaina Marketing and Accessories

D-170, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-1, New Delhi.                                                            Opposite Parties

 

Order

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30-10-2014

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      : 31-03-2015

N.A. Zaidi, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

By way of present complaint the complainant has alleged that his Mobile Model A-34 Tablet of Karbonn Company belonging to OP2 was given for repairs to OP1 vide job sheet No. KJASPDL088614K8346 and later on changed as        No. KJASPDL08814K8671 dated 2-6-2014 complainant also paid Rs. 17,00/- to OP1 for the repairs. Since then complainant visited so many times to the office of OP1 but despite repeated reminders again and again OP1 is not paying any heed to the requests of the complainant and for last about 8 months complainant has to undergo mental tension and agony and prayed for a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith notice charges of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.

            OP1 and OP2 were duly served with the notice of this complaint from this forum on 21-11-2014 and 20-11-2014 respectively but none appeared on their behalf and both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.

            Complainant file his affidavit by way of evidence and placed on record the relevant documents i.e. notice dated 26-9-2014 alongwith registry receipts, invoice of the mobile issued by the seller and job sheet dated 2-6-2014 issued by OP1 as service centre of OP2.

            Heard and perused the record. As per bill the mobile in question was purchased by complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 19,200/-. Said mobile was got deposited, with OP1 a duly authorised service centre of OP2, with the complaint-touch panel broken/ VOC 28, for repairs vide initial job sheet No. KJASPDL088614K8346. Copy of this job sheet also depicts that Rs. 17,00/- were paid by the complainant to OP1 at the time of deposit of the mobile. This job sheet shows no entry of return of the mobile after repairs or otherwise. OPs not coming forward to defend the complaint, all this record remains unrebutted and uncontroverted and the aforesaid facts are deemed to be proved. Thus, the mobile in question is still not repaired and lying with OP1 only and has not been returned to the complainant.

            Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of OP1 in the service, complainant has also got harassment, mental agony and tension at the hands of OP1 by not responding to the requests of the complainant to repair and return the mobile. Regarding OP2 no doubt it is the manufacturer of the mobile in question but the same being not under the warranty and being paid service it is not the responsibility of OP2 to get the same repaired from its authorised and/or unauthorised service centre.

We hold OP1 guilty of deficiency in service, we direct OP1 to repair the handset in question within a period of 15 days from the date of service of the order and ensure to returned the handset to the complainant in good condition. If the same is not done and the handset is not returned as above directed then OP1 shall pay to the complainant the proportionate cost of the hand set on the date of deposit which we fix Rs. 10,000/-.we also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and 3,000/- cost of litigation. The amount deposited for repair i.e. 1,700/- shall also be refunded to the complainant in case if it is not repaired. We further award interest @ of 9% on the compensation and cost if not paid within 45 days from the date of this order.

 

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 31-03-2015) 

           

           

             (N.A. Zaidi)                                                                             (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)                   

               President                                                                                         Member