Delhi

East Delhi

CC/954/2014

ANURAG - Complainant(s)

Versus

GADGET COPS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-954/14

In the matter of:

Sh. Anurag Gupta

S/o Sh. Giriraj Kishore Gupta,

R/o H. No. M-123/2, Jagatram Park,

Laxmi Nagar, delhi-110092         

         Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/s Gadget Cops

Regd. Office at RMP Wlwxreonixa Pcr. Lrs.

T-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New delhi-110020 (India)

Head Office at:A-83, Sector-2

NOIDA-201301, UP (NCR), India

2. M/s New Star Communications

103/3, Gurudwara Dera baba Karam Singh Sahib,

Rashid Market, Patparganj Road,

•  
• HTC

G-4, BPTP Park Centre,

Sector-30, Near NH-8,

Gurgaon, Haryana (122001)

 

                                                                                                                  Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-16/10/2014

                                                                                    DATE OF ORDER       -26/12/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a Mobile Handset (Model Desire 500-5060) for a sum of Rs.21,000/- from Respondent No.2 fide bill No.5036 which was insured through Respondent No.1 from 0510/2013 to 04/10/2015 by making a payment of Rs.2,000/-. The protection plan No. 01-10115981 was issued on the same date. On 25/07/2014, the Screen touch of the mobile got damaged and made the mobile not usable. The Respondent was informed telephonically. An executive of the Respondent No.1 took away the phone on 26/07/2014 vide job sheet No.6477 and promised to return the handset after replacing the screen touch within 10 days. That commitment has not been fulfilled, so far the phone is under the custody of respondent. The complainant has prayed for direction to replace the handset with new one or to repair the same, Rs.50,000/- has been demanded as compensation and cost of litigation.

            Respondent no. 1 filed their reply wherein it has been alleged that the Respondent offered only protection plan which is a service contract and does not amount to converge of insurance in any manner. They admit the handset being picked up on 23/07/2014. The complainant mobile no. was not reachable for two days and the complaint was closed on 26/07/2014. On 28/07/2014 again a complaint was received the handset deposited with the HTC for repair. The Mobile was diagnosed screen breakage, software problem, wifi problem and back camera problem and complainant was informed that the repair would take longer than expected period. The complainant did not contacted Gadget Corp, they have repaired the Mobile handset but it was not received by the complainant. All the service was given as per the contract, no question of any compensation arises and the respondent has alleged that they are ready to handover the repaired handset with the replaced screen on none repairable claim as per the protection plan.

            We have heard the counsels of the parties and perused the evidence on record.

            The complainant allegation regarding the purchase of the protection plan has not disputed by the respondent what they have dispute is that it was not a insurance cover but a contract for providing the service for any kind of repair with in the period of validity of contract. The complainant has filed protection plan copy. The validity was from 05/10/2013 to 04/10/2015. This fact is also admitted that the handset in question was collected vide job sheet no. 6477. In the written statement this is also admitted that it was handover to the HTC for repair and it has been repaired and the respondent is ready to handover the repaired handset to the complainant. The complainant on the contrary argued that he was promised to deliver the handset after repair within 10 days. He was never contacted by the respondent, even after he is served the notice on the respondent before the institution of this complaint. This is not denied in the reply filed by the respondent. They have taken the plea that they have not received the legal notice. They are taking the plea that calls were not answered by the complainant.  There is no evidence placed on record by the respondent, nor they have filed any affidavit in support that after repairing the handset they ever tried to contact the complainant or tried to deliver the handset at his residence. On the contrary the complainant has filed his affidavit which is uncontroverted on record. It is stated on oath that the handset was picked up from his residence on 26/07/2014. It is argued when the phone could be picked up from the residence of the complainant why it could not be delivered at the residence of the complainant post repair. This complaint was filed on 16/10/2014 and on 12/02/2015 the representative of the respondent was present in the court even on that date they have not brought the mobile for handing it over to the complainant. This clearly shows that the phone was not repaired till then. There is no evidence from the side of the respondent that the phone was ever repaired and made functional. The respondent No.3 HTC to whom the respondent No.1 has alleged to have given it for repair has not denied the allegation of the complainant. All these facts clearly shows that the respondent have failed in their obligation under the service contract when they have charged the amount for providing the service. The complainant has been deprived of use of the mobile for almost a year causing him anxiety, pain and agony and he has to take the help of judicial process.

Taking all the above facts and circumstances into consideration we allow this complaint. We direct the respondent No.1 to return to the complainant the handset duly repaired in full working condition with a further extended warranty of one year within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

 On account of harassment mental pain and agony, we award the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000/- compensation. We further award a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as cost of litigation. All the amount should be paid within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest over this amount from the date of the order till it is finally paid.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                      N.A.ZAIDI

      MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT