Delhi

East Delhi

CC/565/2013

Shoorbeer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dasila Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

09 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.565/2013:

In the matter of:        

Sh. Shoorbeer Singh

R/o. A – 142, New Ashok Nagar,

Delhi – 110 096

               Complainant

Vs

1.    M/s. Dasila Enterprises

A – 27/ 28, New Ashok Nagar,

Delhi – 110 096

 

2.    Saksham services

A – 1/ 1, Acharya Niketan Market,

MayurViharPh – I,

New Delhi – 110 091

 

3.  Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

      5th Floor Tower A and B,

      DLF Cyber City, Sector – 25 A,Gurgaon,

     Haryana – 122 002

Respondents

 

Date of Admission -12/07/2013

                                                                           Date of Order          -12/09/2015

 

ORDER

 

Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

 

The present complaint has been filed with the allegations that on 11/05/2013 the complainant purchased a Nokia Mobile Handset Model No. Nokia 114 with IMEI No. 355494059051827 form Respondent No.I for a sum of Rs.2,250/- vide Bill No.1646.  On 12/06/2013 the said handset was submitted to Respondent No.II vide Job Sheet No. 225433527/130612/3.  It is alleged that the officer of the Respondent No.IIdenied repairs on the ground that the mobile was liquid logged and, thus, not covered by warranty.  On 20/06/2013 complainant revisited the Respondent No.II office but his request for repairs was declined though it charged the Complainant Rs.110/-vide Bill No.1397 on 20/06/2013.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,250/-, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In response to the notices issued to the respondents only Respondent No.III put up appearance and filed itswritten version wherein it is contended that it provides warranty of one year from the date of purchase and within the warranty period the mobile handset is repaired free of cost subject to the condition that it is not physically tampered.  In the case in hand the handset was physically tampered being liquid logged and, thus, out of warranty.  As such the same can be repaired if repair charges are paid by him.  Neither any cause of action arises to the complainant against it nor does the complainant have any locus standi to file the present complaint.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant and Respondent No.III in support of their respective cases.

Heard and perused the record.

The fact of purchase of the said handset by the complainant from Respondent No.I for Rs.2,250/- vide Bill No.1646on 11/05/2013 is not in dispute. It is evident from the copy of the Jobsheet filed on record as Paper 5 to the present complaint that on 12/06/2013 when the complainant approached the Respondent No.II for repairs of the handset in question it was not covered by any Job Warranty as under the head “Product Details” it was written ‘Job Warranty: No ’ and defect reported was “Power doesn’t switch on”. Further, it is also clear from the copy of the Bill No.1397 filed on record as Paper 6 to the present complaint that when on 20/06/2013 the complainant had taken the said handset to the Respondent No.II, it checked the same and found it to be tampered and the fact that it was not switching on, there was error on software updation and its main power IC’s were found to be heated up and shorting all confirm the fact that the handset though not specifically written on the Jobsheethad been tampered due to liquid intrusion  and its warranty had been rendered void.  Further, it is evident from Paper No.6 that Rs.110/- had been charged by Respondent No.II towards service charges for checking the defect in the said handset and the likelihood of its reworkability.As such, there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. 

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules and File be consigned to the Record Room.

 

   (Subhash Gupta)                                         (Poonam Malhotra)                          (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                     Member                                                 President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.