Delhi

East Delhi

CC/226/2015

BALBEEN KOUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALJEET TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.226 / 2015:
In the Matter of:

Smt. BalbeerKourSodi

W/o. Sh. Virender Singh Sodi

R/o. H.No.23, Old Geeta Colony,

Near 2 Block – Gurudwara,

Delhi - 110 031

  Complainant

Vs

1. Baljeet Telecom
1.  

Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,

      Delhi - 110 031

 

2. Cell Care

D – 30, 2^ndFloor, Old Patparganj Road,

Opp. Jain Mandir,

NirmanVihar, Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

H.O. – 12^th Floor, Ambience Island,

NH – 8, Gurgaon -  122 002

Respondents

 

                                                                                                           Date of Admission - 28/04/2015

                                                                                                          Date of Order          - 27/11/2015

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

            The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 28/09/2014 the complainant purchased a Panasonic Mobile Phone handset with IMEI No.354531060032550 from Respondent No.I vide Invoice No.BT/RI/14/09442 C/Rcpt. No.B/CP14I02953 for Rs. 11,700/-.  It is alleged that from the very first day of its purchase the said mobile handset was defective and after some months the problem of hanging developed in it.  On 17/02/2015the said handset was submitted to Respondent No.IIvide Job Sheet No. KJASPDL108215K23858and it was assured that it would be delivered back to him after 7 days. Despite repeated visits the said handset has not been delivered back to the complainant after carrying out the due repairs.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 11,700/-, the cost of the handset, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment meted out by her and Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

 

Notices were served upon the respondents but only Respondent No.II put up appearance but did not file its written statement.  None put up appearance from the side of the Respondent Nos.I& III.  Case proceeded exparte against all the respondents.

 

            Affidavit in evidence filed by the complainant in support of her case has not been controverted by the respondents.

           

Heard the complainant and perused the record.

           

On perusal of the record, the fact of purchase of Panasonic Mobile Phone handset Model No.P41 with IMEI No. 354531060032550 by the complainant from Respondent No.Ifor Rs.11,700/- (Rs.10,400/- plus VAT Rs. 1,300/- vide Retail Invoice No.BT/RI/14/09442 C/Rcpt. No.B/CP14I02953 on 28/09/2014 is evident from the copy of the said retail invoice annexed by the complainant alongwith the present complaint. From the Service Jobsheet dated 17/02/2015 it is apparent that within six months of the purchase of the handset in question it was submitted to Respondent No.IIfor the rectification of the problem of hanging. It is alleged by the complainant that since its submission to Respondent No.IIon 17/02/2015 for the rectification of the alleged defectthe said handset has not been returned to her after carrying out the due repairs. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No.II was under an obligation to rectify the defects in the said handset and if the alleged defect was beyond repairs it was obligatory upon it to have escalated the complaint of the complainant to Respondent No.III for the redressal of her grievance which it has not done in the present case.  Instead, it catnapped over the matter in utter disregard of its obligation to redress her grievance.  Inaction on the part of the Respondent No.II had constrained the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum for seeking redressal of her grievance.  In the case in hand the Respondent No.II is the Service Centre of Respondent No.III.  The fact that despite putting up appearance in the present complainant and receiving a copy of the complainant it had chosen not to contest the case in hand leaves no room for doubt that they were aware of the fact that the handset in question was suffering for defects which were beyond repairs and it shall be presumed that Respondent No.IIhas admitted allthe allegations made by the complainant in the complaint.  In the case in hand the allegations made in the complaint have been reaffirmed on oath by the complainant and the same have not been controverted by the respondents.It is a settled position of law that uncontroverted evidence cannot be disbelieved and there is no reason for us to disbelieve the uncontroverted averments made by the complainant and the same shall be taken to be true.  It is relevant to mention here that it is obligatory upon the manufacturer, the Respondent No.III in the present case, to keep a check on its grievance redressal system to see that its customers are given valuable after sale services as customer satisfaction is akey criterionfor the conduct of ethical business.

The complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent No.I.  As such it is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

 

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration holding the Respondent Nos.II& III guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant we direct them to pay, jointly or severally, Rs.10,400/-, the cost of the handset  to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this judgment.  The VAT of Rs.1,300/- cannot be refunded as the same is deposited in the Govt.Treasury.  We, further, award penalty/compensation of Rs.1,500/- on account of harassment meted out to the complainant and it shall include the cost of this litigation.   The complainant shall handover the original jobsheet against which he had last submitted the handset at the Service Centre alongwith the mobile phone accessories to the respondents on receipt of the said amount.   If this amount is not paid within 45 days, the complainant shall be entitled to interest over this amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of judgment till it is finally paid to the complainant.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                      (N.A.Zaidi)

Member                                                                                             President