DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 895/2016

D.No.__________________         Date: ________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

LAVISH SHARMA,

S/o SH. ANIL SHARMA,

R/o 93-A, G & JU GREEN APPARTMENTS,

PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.… COMPLAINANT  

Versus

1. CELL GURU,

    G-25, VIKAS SURYA MALL,

    M2K, ROHINI, DELHI.
 

2. HTC INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    G-4, BPTP PARK AVENUE, SEC.-30,

    NEAR NH-8, GURUGRAM-122002.

3. M/s SMART MOBILE TOTAL SOLUTION,

    89, BAGCHI MADHO DASS,

OPP. LAJPAT RAI MARKET,DELHI-110006.  … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

                                        Date of Institution: 09.09.2016  

                                               Date of decision:25.11.2019

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 29.06.2013, the complainant purchased one mobile handset make HTC One 80K bearing IMEI no.35443501881522 vide retail invoice no.9829/99 dated 29.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.43,000/- from OP-1

CC No.895/2016                                                                            Page 1 of 4

          alongwith protection plan of Rs.5,000/- vide invoice no. SI. No. DL-30118 dated 29.06.2013 valid for 2 years i.e. up-to 30.06.2015 from OP-3. The complainant further alleged that the complainant paid the total amount of Rs.48,654/- from his brother’s credit cardand the receipt was in the name of his brother Mr. Kashish Sharma. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset was not functioning properly and creating various kinds of trouble.The complainant visited in the office of HTC service center (TVS Electronics), New Delhi for rectification of faults and show that main board was damaged and no power/cannot boot. Thereafter, the complainant approached to mobile shop for shortout the problem but they avoided about the service and the complainant tired badly after approaching the above authorities and suffering with acute mental agony & pain with loss of work etc. and the complainant further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to pay the cost of Rs.43,000/- being the cost of the mobile handset alongwith Rs.5,000/- as cost of insurance which was paid by the complainant (i.e. total Rs.48,000/-) and has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment.

3.       Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on

CC No.895/2016                                                                            Page 2 of 4

          08.11.2016 and the notice to OP-1 was served on 21.10.2016, OP-2 has been served on 19.10.2016 & OP-3 has also been served on 24.10.2016 as per track reports. But none for OP-1& OP-3 appeared on 08.11.2016 and as such OP-1 & OP-3 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.11.2016.

4.       Earlier OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed the reply and submitted that the case of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. OP-2 submitted that OP-2 provides only one-year warrantee for the products and the complainant has on his own bought Protection Warrantee from OP-3 which is not done with the knowledge of OP-2 and OP-2 not bound by it.

5.       The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 and denied the submissions of OP-2 and the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased the said mobile handset on 29.06.2013 with payment of Rs.43,000/- and insured with  payment of Rs.5,000/-.

6.       In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 9829/99 dated 29.06.2013 issued by OP-1 of Rs.43,000/-, copy of mobile phone protection plan no. SI. No. DL-30118 dated 29.06.2013 w.e.f

CC No.895/2016                                                                            Page 3 of 4

          29.06.2013 to 30.06.2015 which is bearing the stamp of OP-1, copy of receipt of payment through HDFC Bank credit card on 29.06.2013, copy of HTC Repair Report dated nil and copies of e-mail communication between the parties.

7.       On the other hand OP-2 did not file evidence despite giving opportunities and also not file written arguments.

8.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed on record by the complainant. We find that the present complaint has been filed after expiry of warrantee period. Though, in this regards, the complainant submitted that he filed an earlier complaint bearing CC No.592/2015 on 12.05.2015 but the said case was dismissed in default on 13.07.2016 due to the absence of the complainant. We have considered the plea of the complainant. The complainant is not justified in filing the 2^nd complaint after expiry of warrantee period. Accordingly, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is dismissed.

9.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 25^thNovember, 2019.

BARIQ AHMED                                                       M.K. GUPTA

   (MEMBER)                                                              (PRESIDENT)

CC No.895/2016                                                                            Page 4 of 4