SHRI PRATIK JAIN filed a consumer case on 26 Sep 2017 against BEST DEAL COMMUNICATION in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/226/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Oct 2017.
Delhi
North East
CC/226/2016
SHRI PRATIK JAIN - Complainant(s)
Versus
BEST DEAL COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)
26 Sep 2017
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST
Present complaint has been filed by Shri Prateek Jain against Best Deal Communication- OP1, Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.- OP2 & Sai Communication- OP3 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, thereby alleging deficiency in service against OPs.
Facts of present complaint are that the complainant ordered one Moto G Plus 4th Gen (Black) 32 GB Mobile Handset through Amazon which was delivered on 1.6.2016, the cost of the Handset was Rs. 15,000/- for which invoice vide No. KA BLR5-167791461-65143 was issued. It is stated that after one month there was problem with the hands free jack for which the complainant visited OP3, Authorized Service Centre on 9.7.2016. He was informed that the repaired hand set shall be handed over within a week. After a week, the complainant was further informed that repairing will take one more week as the part was not available. It has further been stated that the complainant was informed that the Handset shall soon be repaired and complaint number 160719014949 was issued. It has also been stated that despite lodging complaint with National Consumer Help Line, the grievance of complainant was not addressed and he was forced to buy used handset of Rs. 5,000/- as an alternative to the handset in question. Hence, in the present complaint complainant seeking directions to OP to refund Rs. 15,000/- or replace the handset, Rs. 6,500/- as misc expenses and Rs. 15,000/- compensation for mental harassment and agony. The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 1.6.2016, job sheet dated 9.7.2016, letter dated 7.8.2016 addressed to Motorola Customer Service Head alongwith postal receipt.
Notice of present complaint served upon to OPs but they were proceeded ex parte as they did not appear. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he reaffirmed the contents of the complaint.
We have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has placed on record invoice alongwith job sheet issued by OP3, wherein the problem of handsfree jack has been mentioned. As all the OPs are ex-parte the contents of the complaint have remained uncontroverted. It has been stated by complainant that OP3, Authorized Service Centre has failed to deliver the repair handset amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we direct OP3 to refund Rs. 15,000/- being cost of handset as the complainant had deposited the said handset within first two months of purchase. We also award compensation of Rs. 7,500/- as the delay on the part of OP3 in handing over the repaired handset has resulted in lapse of warranty period as well. This shall be inclusive of litigation expenses. The complainant has not placed any bill on record to prove that he has purchased old handset in lieu of handset in dispute, so no compensation to that effect can be awarded. In case OP3 fails to complied with the order, then the awarded amount of Rs. 22,500/- shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order till realization.
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 26.09.2017)
(N.K. Sharma)
President
(Harpreet Kaur Charya)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.