Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/176

Radhey Shyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ankur Telent - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution: 17.03.2015

Complaint Case. No.176/15                                                         Date of order:  03.03.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. Radhey Shyam, L-3/23, Mohan Garden, Near Raghubir Singh Model School, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                    Complainant

VERSUS

Ankur Telenet, J-32, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015                                           Opposite party-1

 

Home Services Insurance Company, Shop No. 4A/4B, 1^st Floor, Ajendra Place, Prem Nagar, New Delhi-110007                                                                                                      Opposite party-2

 

Paladin System Pvt. Ltd., Collection Point, West End Mall, 114, 2^nd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                                                  Opposite party-3

 

Harkrishan Gallery and services, HTC Care Services Report, Service Centre, UG 26 Suneja Tower-2, District Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058                                 Opposite party-4

 

 

ORDER

SHRI R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT  

The brief facts as stated by complainant are that he purchased one mobile handset of make “ HTC desire 501” for sale consideration of Rs.16,800/- on 18.03.2014 from Ankur Telenet herein after referred as the opposite party no.1. He insured the mobile handset from Home services on 18.03.2014 herein after referred as the opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs. 1680/-. The mobile handset developed fault on 05.01.2015 and he deposited the mobile handset on 07.01.2015 with the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 issued job sheet no. 7255 dated 12.02.2015 and told complainant that the mobile handset will be repaired after seven days. When complainant visited opposite party no.1 after seven days again the opposite party no.1 told complainant to collect the handset after some days. But despite several visit by complainant till today the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned to the complainant. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to refund cost of the mobile handset and pay compensation on account of physical and mental suffering.

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.4 filed a short reply stating that the mobile handset was never deposited with the opposite party no.4. Hence, there is no cause of action against them and requested to delete their name from array of parties. The remaining  opposite parties no.1 to 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.12.15. The complainant filed application dated 08.05.2015. Wherein he stated that a new handset is given by opposite party no. 2 on 14.04.2015. Which also developed some fault within two days.

When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit he filed his affidavit dated 05.07.2016 narrating the facts of complainant. In support of his version he relied upon copy of invoice dated 18.05.2014, job sheets dated 12.02.2015 and 20.02.2015 and copy of protection plan dated 18.03.2014. He once again prayed for refund of cost of the mobile handset and payment of compensation on account of physical and mental sufferings.

We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

From perusal of the affidavit and documents placed on record by the complainant it reveals that complainant has purchased one mobile handset of “HTC desire 501”. He insured his mobile handset with the opposite party no. 2 on payment of Rs. 1680/-. The mobile handset developed fault and was collected by the opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. 7255 dated 12.02.2015. The application dated 08.05.2015 reveals that the opposite party no. 2 has replaced the old mobile handset with new mobile handset on 14.04.2015. There is no material on record to show that the new mobile handset is also defective. The complainant is unable to show that his grievance is not redressed by the opposite parties.

The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his version.  The complainant from the unrebutted version has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset of make HTC desire 501 for sale consideration of Rs. 16,800/- from the opposite party no. 1 on  18.03.2014. On the same day he insured his mobile handset with the opposite party no.2 for two years on payment of Rs. 1680/-.  The version of the complainant is that the mobile handset has been replaced by the opposite party no.2 but the same is also defective and he is unable to support his version as there is no material on record to show that the new handset is also defective. Hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not liable to refund cost of the mobile handset or pay any compensation.

In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint fails. Resultantly dismissed.   

Order pronounced on :    03.03.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)                       MEMBER                                                        MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT