Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/513

Harish kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Glitch System - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2017

ORDER

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                            Date of institution: 29.07.2015

Complaint Case. No.513/15                                              Date of order:02.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Harish Sharma, RZ-14/211, I-Block, Gali No. 8, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046.            

 Complainant

VERSUS

1.Glitch System, G-3, Vishwa Sadan, Janakpuri District Centre, New Delhi-110058.                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.Royal Green Services, 212-B, 3^rd Floor, Street No.2, Vaishali, New Delhi-110045.                                                                                          Opposite party no.2

3. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                                                               Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly case of Shri Harish Sharma here in the complainant named above is that on 07.01.14 he purchased one mobile make and model “Sony Xperia/Z/Black” for sum of R.32,990/- from Glitch System opposite party no.1 manufactured by Sony India Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no.3. On the same day on persuasion of the opposite party no.1 he ensured the mobile with Royal Green Services the opposite party no.2 for two years on payment of Rs.3,100/- as insurance amount. On 09.07.15 screen of the mobile was broken. He delivered the mobile with the opposite party no.1 in warranty for repairs. They assured repair and return of the mobile within 10-15 days. The complainant after 10 days visited the opposite party no.1 to enquire about status of repair of his mobile. When the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 to collect the mobile  and checked the mobile, the screen of the mobile was not found original and they also asked for payment of Rs.1,970/- as repair charges. They also refused to give copy of bill and job sheet card. Therefore, the complainant did not pay sum of Rs.1,970/- to the opposite party no.1. Thereupon the opposite party no.1 asked the complainant to leave the mobile with the opposite party no.1 and promised to talk to the opposite party no.2. But when after 10 days, the complainant again visited the opposite party no.1 for collection of his mobile, they told the complainant that the opposite party no.2 has left and the opposite party no.2 cannot help the complainant. There upon the complainant told the opposite party no.1 that he insured the mobile on asking of the opposite party no.1. The mobile is within warranty for six months more.  He is entitled for repair of the mobile without charges. But to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to return cost of the mobile and pay compensation for mental and physical agony.

Notice of the complaint was served on the opposite parties. But despite service neither the opposite party no.1 nor  the opposite party no.2 appeared. Therefore, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

The opposite party no3 filed reply while contesting the complaint raising preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and the complaint is false and frivolous against the opposite party no.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. The opposite party no.3 further asserted that there is no allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part against the opposite party no.3. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost against the opposite party no.3.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no.3 while reiterating his stand taken in the complaint and controverting stand of the opposite party no.3 and once again prayed for the directions to the opposite parties.

When Shri Harish Sharma complainant was asked to lead evidence, he tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant also relied upon invoice no.1196 dated 07.01.14 and cashless protection plan dated 07.01.14.

When the opposite party no.3 was asked to lead evidence in support of their version, they relied upon affidavit of Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Officer of the opposite party no.3 narrating facts of the reply. They also relied upon resolution dated 07.02.14.

We have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.3 and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version  and evidence of the complainant against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence of the complainant. The complainant from his affidavit, invoice date 07.01.14 and cashless protection plan date 07.01.14 has been able to prove that the complainant on 07.01.14 purchased mobile make and model “Sony Xperia/Z/Black”  for sum of R.32,990/- from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.3 and on the same day on persuasion of opposite party no.1 insured the mobile with the opposite party no.2 on payment of insurance amount of Rs.3,100/-. The complainant on 19.07.15 delivered the mobile to the opposite party no.1 for repair from the opposite party no.2. But the opposite parties no.1 and 2  neither repaired nor returned the mobile despite the fact that the mobile was within insurance / warranty period. The complainant has suffered loss of his mobile. He is also deprived of his right to use the mobile. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

Therefore, we direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.32,990/- cost of mobile with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till actual realization of the amount and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental, physical and financial agony suffered by the complainant.  The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Order pronounced on :02.05.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

               MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT