BANSI filed a consumer case on 20 Aug 2018 against B2X SERVICE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/11/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Aug 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 11 /2017
Date of Institution 06/01/2017
Order Reserved on 20/08/2018
Date of Order 21/08/2018
In matter of
Mr Bansi, adult
S/o- Sh. Om Prakash
R/o-E83, Block E, Shastri park, Delhi 110051…..…………………..….Complainant
Vs
M/s B2X Vansika Electronics
WA-118, Shakarpur Nr Mother Dairy, Delhi 110092…………….……Opponent
Complainant In Person
Opponent Ex Parte
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case -
Complainant purchased a Motorola G2 handset VI98232, model no X11608 on 12/02/2016 vide invoice no. ghz160200000953 through Flipcart, online (Ex CW1/1) with one year standard warranty for a sum of Rs 6299/.
It was stated that on 27/02/2016, touch screen got damaged by complainant and so gave his handset for repair to OP, who asked for Rs 3200/- for repairing the set vide job sheet no. 4928 (Ex CW1/2). It was told by OP to collect the said mobile after some time, but even after three months, complainant could not get his mobile and asked to return the set, OP asked to give Rs 8000/- or his mobile would not be returned. Despite of sending emails to customer care on 14/04/2016, 15/06/2016 and 28/06/2016, no reply was received. Hence, filed this complaint for refund of the cost mobile set Rs 6299/- with 18% interest and compensation for harassment Rs 20,000/- and Rs 1000/- as litigation fee.
Even sending notices, OP did not appear or submitted written statement so preceded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidence on affidavit where he affirmed that his facts and evidences were correct and true. As evidences were not controverted, so taken on record. After hearing arguments from complainant, file perused and order reserved.
It was seen that complainant had purchased his handset through online and got damaged by himself so the standard warranty got void. As the touch screen was broken, hand set was given to OP. It was clear that the cost of the hand set was Rs 6299/ and touch screen replacement cost was around Rs 3200/-which complainant could not pay. Hence, there was no deficiency in services of OP. As there was neither manufacturing defect nor external/physical damages were covered under insurance, so OP cannot be made liable for any deficiency. As the hand set is with OP, hence we direct complainant to take back his mobile within 15 days and if he wishes to get repair his mobile from OP, has to pay the cost of touch screen, but OP shall not take service charges. As manufacturer has not been made party so extension of warranty does not apply.
The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and the file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Mrs Harpreet Kaur
Member Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.