Delhi

North

CC/302/2014

DEVENDER K JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

GADGET COPS. & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

ROOM NO.2, OLD CIVIL SUPPLY BUILDING,
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/302/2014
 
1. DEVENDER K JAIN
16/11, SHAKTI NAGAR, DELHI
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. GADGET COPS. & OTHERS
CARIANO NEXT, 8-E- KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI
DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sh. Babu Lal PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. D.R. Tamta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

O R D E R

Shahina, Member

 

The complainant has filed present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Samsung Galaxy Trend (S 7392) M Black mobile phone bearing IMEI No.358870056109659 from OP-2 vide invoice No.R1/00838 dated 16.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.9,000/-.  On the very same date complainant   had  also   got   insured   his    instrument    through   the

O.P-1(Gadget Cops) and the plan was taken against any damages like accidental damages and water damage was covered for two years under this plan and the plan was named as protection plan.  OP-3 Samsung is the manufacturer at IInd, IIIrd and IVth Floor Tower, Vipul Tech Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002.  After one week complainant found some internal physical breakdown in his mobile phone like slow processor, colour fade and software problem, junk on charging space.  It is alleged that complainant immediately called to one of your Gadget Cops executive and stated about the internal physical breakdown of his mobile phone and made a complaint on 05.08.2014.  It is also alleged that executive of O.P-1 came to the house of the complainant and that executive made a fault completion report and the carbon copy of the same was handed over to complainant and reported the problems.  It is alleged that the executive took that mobile phone for repairing the same and assured complainant to return this mobile phone after one week of the time after repairing the same.  However, the same was returned back after 11 days and requested that it has been repaired and no problem would be reported in future now.  It is also alleged that the mobile phone was handed over to complainant’s neighbor and again complainant tried to loge the report on 16.08.2014 and made several calls to them but phone was not picked up by them.  On 20.08.2014 complainant again called to office of O.P-1 and stating that nothing has been repaired and the problem has been as it was.  It is also alleged that complainant made several complaints and sent reminders to the O.P but all in vain.  Complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 20.09.2014 but to no avail.  On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to handover a new set of mobile phone or refund the price of the mobile phone and also to pay compensation as claimed.

2.     The O.Ps were duly served but they did not put an appearance therefore they were proceeded with ex-parte.  Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.  

3.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

4.     From the perusal of record we find that complainant has placed on record invoice No. R1/00838 dated 16.02.2014 issued by Cariana Next, Kamla Nagar, Delhi which shows that Samsung Galaxy Trend (S 7392) M Black mobile phone bearing IMEI No.358870056109659 was purchased by the complainant for Rs.9,000/-.

5.     We have carefully gone through the record of the case.  From the perusal of the record we find that the mobile phone in question was giving frequent problems for which complainant has made several complaints to the O.Ps.  The mobile phone was under warrantee but O.P-1 could not rectify the defect in the said mobile phone though the complainant had visited the service centre of the O.P-1 on several occasions.  The mobile phone had been giving problem repeatedly even after it has been repaired, it cannot be said that goods sold to complainant was marketable as the same was having some inherent manufacturing defect. On the other hand O.Ps did not attend to the reasonable grievance of the complainant.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that there was defect in the goods sold by the O.Ps which they failed to rectify and secondly they failed to render proper service to the complainant which is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.

6.     In view of the above, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if O.Ps are directed to refund the price of the mobile phone to the complainant.  Accordingly we direct the O.Ps, jointly and severally, to pay Rs.9,000/- the price of the mobile phone to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order.  Apart from that O.Ps shall jointly and severally also pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation.  Ordered accordingly.  The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

  Announced this 27th  day of April, 2015.

(BABU LAL)                   (D.R. TAMTA)             (SHAHINA)                                       

  President                           Member                    Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sh. Babu Lal]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.R. Tamta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina]
MEMBER

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.