Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/404/12 Date of Institution:- 18.10.2012 Order Reserved on:- 19.04.2024 Date of Decision:- 17.05.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Prasad R/o RZ-131, RoshanVihar Part-II, Delhi - 43 .….. Complainant VERSUS M/s BhawanaTelepoint 1626-D, Opp. Sanchar Haat, Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi Also At: WS-109, Street No.1, Sadh Nagar, Palam New Delhi. .…..Opposite Party Per Dr.HarshaliKaur, Member - Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the Complainant purchased a new handset, Nokia Asha 200 PMI No. 351945052367126, on 20.04.2012 from the OP. Annexure-C is the copy of the invoice issued to the Complainant at the time of purchase. The Complainant alleges that along with the handset, the OP also offered a warranty card worth Rs. 500/-, which he purchased from the OP. The warranty card no. MCDLC-007437 covered all kinds of damages, and a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-D with the complaint.
- The grievance of the Complainant is that merely 25 days after the date of purchase of his new mobile handset, he found some technical issues had arisen in his phone. He immediately called the OP to get the defects rectified.Under the warranty card terms and conditions, the OP was duty-bound to collect the Complainant’s handset from the given address in the form within 24 hours of receiving his complaint. However, the OP’s executive collected the Complainant’s mobile phone on 20.05.2012. Annexure-E is a copy of the receipt of the submission of the defective handset to the OP.
- Thereafter, on 02.06.2012, the Complainant received a telephone call from the customer care centreof the OP that his phone had been marked as non-repairable on 22.05.2012 without informing him of the same. On inquiry, the Complainant was unable to get any satisfactory answer as to why his phone could not be repaired. The Complainant was, therefore, forced to purchase a new handset worth Rs. 3600/- on 05.06.2012. He has annexed the copy of the bill as Annexure-F.
- When no action was taken to resolve his grievance, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.07.2012 (Annexure-G and Annexure-H). On 18.07.2012, the Complainant had a telephonic conversation with Mr. Rawat, the executive of the company who had issued the warranty card for his mobile handset, i.e., MOBILECARE,and had allegedly assured him that a new handset would be handed to him on 19.07.2012 from the OP shop.
- On the date, while the Complainant was on his way to collect his new handset, he met with an accident due to which he could not collect the promised mobile phone. The Complainant again contacted Mr. Vivek, who told him a new handset would be delivered to him on 24.07.2012. However, the Complainant did not receive the same and was later informed that his old defective handset would be repaired and that he would not be given a new handset.
- Aggrieved by the contradictory statements of the OP executives, the Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and prayed for directions to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation to the mental agony and harassment faced by him and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
- Notice was issued to OP to file their reply. In their written statement, the OP has admitted that the Complainant purchased a Nokia Asha-200 handset from the OP for a sum of Rs. 4,100/- on 20.04.2012. The OP received a complaint call from the Complainant regarding the collection of his phone, which was done on the same day, as proved by the Complainant’s own document, Annexure-E, filed with his complaint.
- Since the Complainant’s phone was non-repairable, the OP offered a new Nokia Asha-200 handset, but the Complainant demanded Rs. 10,000/- along with the new handset as the OP could not repair his defective mobile. The Complainant also threatened the OP when they refused to accept his demands. In their reply, the OP stated on record that they are ready to provide the Complainant with a new handset before the forum and pray for the present complaint to be dismissed without costs.
- The Complainant filed his rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, proving on record all the documents filed by him to corroborate his claim and reiterated the averments made by him in his complaint. When the OP did not file their affidavit in evidence despite several opportunities, the OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.12.2013.The Complainant filed the written arguments, and the case was fixed for the final arguments. None appeared for the contesting parties despite several opportunities, and hence, we felt it prudent to reserve the present case based on material already on record.
- We have carefully perused the documents filed by the contesting parties and have carefully gone through the material on record. We find that the Complainant purchased a Nokia Asha-200 handset on 20.04.2012, paying a consideration amount of Rs. 4,100/-. Annexure-C is a copy of the retailed invoice issued by the OP.
- Annexure-D is the membership/warranty card copy valid for 2 years from the activation date. When the Complainant found some defects in his phone, he contacted the OP only after a few weeks of purchase. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty card issued by the OP, they collected his phone. The Complainant had also filed a copy of the fault completion report dated 21.05.2012 when the Complainant’s mobile was received by the OP executive as Annexure-E.
- These facts are not disputed by the OP who has filed the reply. Thereafter, the Complainant was assured that since his mobile was not repairable, as mentioned in their reply, a new mobile handset was to be handed over to the Complainant. However, the OP did not fulfil their promise. The OP neither repaired the Complainant’s phone nor gave him a new handset in place of the unrepairable phone, as admitted.
- Since the OP is ex-parte, we have no reason to disbelieve the Complainant’s uncontroverted and unrebutted testimony. Further, the OP’s own statement that the Complainant, who purchased the new handset on 20.04.2012, developed defects only after using it for a month. The defects were significant enough that they could not be rectified, and the OP was willing to give the Complainant a new mobile phone.
- In our view, this is an admission of deficient service in itself. The OP should have replaced the Complainant’s handset immediately, knowing that his handset was not repairable and was under warranty for 2 years, as issued by them. And yet, the OP failed to do so for reasons best known to them.
- Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to refund the Complainant the sum of Rs. 4,100/- towards his mobile phone, which developed unrepairable issues within a month, along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 18.10.2012 till realization. No other order as to cost as interest granted in the present case shall adequately meet with the ends of justice.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 17.05.2024.
| |