Delhi

North East

CC/29/2023

Sh. Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divine Galaxy E-Services - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 29/23

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Raj Kumar S/o  Sh. Balbir Singh R/o B 15, Tilak St. No.1, New Usmanpur Nearby MCD Flat, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Divine Galaxy E-Services 114, Lower Ground Floor, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:        DATE OF ORDER:

07.02.23 22.07.24 16.10.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party i.e. Divine Galaxy E-Services, a multi brand service center.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that sales representative contacted Complainant and Complainant told the sales representative about hanging problem of his phone. The Sales representative quoted Rs. 500/- as repair charges and further lured Complainant with valuable offers and packages which includes the pick and drop service of the phone, repair within hours etc. On 20.11.22 Opposite Party allegedly sent its executive Sandeep to  Complainant’s residence to collect phone having Model no. Samsung A 50 for repair and assured to provide phone after repair within 4 to 6 hours but Opposite Party failed to do so and asked Complainant for some more time of two days. Thereafter, Complainant contacted Opposite Party on 22.11.22 to inquire about his phone and Opposite Party informed that the said phone was still not ready and will be delivered to him after 2 days and projected the charges for repair as Rs. 3,500/-. Thereafter Complainant objected the same as charges informed to him initially were Rs. 500/- and asked Opposite Party to return his phone immediately but Opposite Party again assured him to provide phone within two days and the phone will be delivered to his place and the charges will remain the same as informed initially. Thereafter, Complainant tried to contact Opposite Party on multiple occasions but all in vain. The Opposite Party has wrongfully retained the phone and misappropriated it for his personal gain and profit. The Complainant has also sent notice to Opposite Party on 17.12.22 and the notice was served to Opposite Party but despite service Opposite Party did not pay heed to the request of Opposite Party. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.  The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- as dereliction of duty on the part of Opposite Party causing mental harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 21.04.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and perused the file including the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party collected the Complainant’s phone. It is alleged that Opposite Party neither repaired the phone nor returned the same to the Complainant leading to deficiency in services. 
6. The Complainant has also made averments in the Complainant that the Opposite Party has wrongfully retained the phone and misappropriated it for his personal gain and profit.
7. In this context, we would like to rely upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs. R. Chandramohan dated 27.03.2023 wherein it is held that:-

“The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

8. In the case in hand, the Complainant has made allegations of criminal misappropriation and breach of trust which cannot be entertained by this Commission in view of above authority. Moreover, the Complainant has led any cogent evidence in support of his case, hence no case of deficiency is made out.
9. In view of above, we are of the considered view that present complaint cannot be entertained by this Commission.
10. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Order announced on 16.10.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President