MOHIT filed a consumer case on 12 Jan 2017 against GADGETWOOD SER. in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/819/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Mar 2017.
CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 819 / 2015
Date of Institution 30/10/2015
Order Reserved on 12/01/2017
Date of Order 13/01/2017 In matter of
Mr Mohit, adult
S/o- Sh Satya Pal singh
R/o HN 19, Jhilmil Colony
M S Park, Delhi 110093……………………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1 M/s Gadgetwood eSrvices Pvt Ltd.
4-A/13, 3rd Floor, Above TVS showroom
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018……………………………..……………Opponent
Complainant …………………………………In Person
Opponent ……………………………………..Ex Parte
Quorum Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant had purchased a Gionee Elife E6 (white) mobile having code no. B 2256247 vide IMEI 862704021181824 vide invoice no TIL/13/-14/N/DL/11823958 for a sum of Rs 22500/- from Times Internet Ltd as online portal on dated 08/01/2014 as marked here as CW1/1.
Mobile had screen problem, so was Gadgetwood eServices / OP picked up the said mobile from the residence of complainant vide request ID 21960 on dated 19/07/2015 as marked CW1/2 & 2A. It was stated that OP had charged Rs 600/-for service and asked complainant to come after 3-4 days, but despite of repeated visit, the said mobile was not returned by OP. Complainant had also sent a legal notice which was not replied as marked CW1/3. Hence, this complaint was filed for claiming refund of cost of the mobile a sum of Rs 22500/- with compensation Rs 50,000/-for litigation charges.
Notice was served. None appeared for OP and not submitted written statement or evidences. A postal tracking report was filed which showed that notice was served for the date fixed, but no one appeared, so OP was proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit and affirmed that his mobile was deposited with OP and was not delivered despite of paying service charges.
The case was listed for arguments, but OP did not appear for arguments. Complainant’s arguments were heard, file perused and order was reserved
We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record submitted by complainant, it was evident that his mobile was with OP for repair, but did not get the same. This clearly amounts deficiency of services by OP. Thus, complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency of OP who was an authorized service centre and had picking and dropping services centre besides service centre. We come to the conclusion that complaint has merit and the same deserve to be allowed with the following order—
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.