RAVI RANJAN filed a consumer case on 25 Jan 2017 against CELL CARE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/1025/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Mar 2017.
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 1025 / 2014
Date of Institution 14/11/2014
Order Reserved on 25/01/2017
Date of Order 27/01/2017 In matter of
Mr Ravi Ranjan, adult
R/o 10-A, FF,
Krishna Kunj Extn. Part II,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1 M/s The Cell Care
D-30, 2nd Floor,
Old Patpargunj Road, Delhi 110092
2 Karbonn Mobile Co.
3/13, Off 7th Main HAL Road,
2nd Stage, Appareddy Palya,
Indira Nagar, Banguluru 560038 ………………………..……….Opponents
Complainant …………………………………In Person
Opponent 1 & 2 Advo. ……..…………..Ms Jyoti Sharma & Kapil Kumar AR
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 Karbonn mobile through online model no. A-12 black vide order ID no OD31018140932 on dated 19/10/2013 for sum of Rs 4999/ having IMEI no. 9113o5401737011 from OP1 / WS Retail Services Pvt Ltd marked as CW1/1.
Mobile developed problem in back camera after some time, so visited authorized service centre OP2 / Cell care on 03/06/2014, vide job sheet no. 3754 noted problems as “Under Warranty, No power and Back camera problem”. A service problem was noted and assured to return after 7 days marked as CW1/2.
Despite of repeated visit by complainant, the said mobile was not returned even passing of 5 months, so aggrieved and felt harassed thus filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of his mobile Rs 4900/-with compensation Rs 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment. He also claimed Rs 15,000/- as cost of litigation.
Notices were served. OP2 submitted written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. OP2 submitted that the said mobile was repaired as it was under standard warranty and was timely delivered to the complainant. When complainant deposited his mobile on 03/06/2014 for repair, it had service related problem and was delivered on same day. OP2 stated that their products were in one year standard warranty except battery. The said mobile had no manufacturing defect as it was used over seven month by complainant without any problem.
Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit where he stated in his affidavit as his mobile was with OP1 and was under warranty. The evidences on affidavit submitted by OP2 jointly stated that there was no manufacturing defect and was used for over seven months without problem. Arguments were heard from both the parties, file perused and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant had deposited his mobile with OP1 for repair, but did not get the same. There was no evidence from OPs to prove that the said mobile was returned after repair. As mobile was under warranty and mobile had service related problems, but the same was neither rectified by OP1 nor mobile was returned to complainant as OP1 was an authorized service centre of OP2 which was near to his house. Not returning his said mobile amounts deficiency of services by OP1. We do not find any liability of OP2.
Thus, complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency of OP1. We come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and the same deserve to be allowed with the following order—
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(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.