Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/317/2014

MR. VINAY ARYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOD SONS ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/317/2014
 
1. MR. VINAY ARYA
R/OM 307, GALI PAI WALI BAHADUR GARH D 6
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. GOD SONS ENTERPRISES
B-18, 9/54 LGF NAMOHAN CHABERS DB GUPTA ROAD KAROL BAGH ND 5
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR SHARMA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

 

The complainant had purchased a mobile handset make Karbon Smart A26 ( white) for a sum of Rs. 5699/-.  In March 2014, it had started giving problems. The complainant had taken it to the service center (OP1) and had deposited the same with them.  The complainant has alleged that he has visited ten times but OP1 had failed to return the handset repaired or otherwise. Hence, the complaint.

      A copy of the complaint was sent to the Ops by registered post on 30.9.2014 and  19.1.2015. The summons were not received back unserved and,therefore, service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops since, the OP has failed to appear and contest the complainant has been proceeded with ex-parte. In its ex-parte evidence, the complainant has filed his own affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have presumed the record.   The complainant has placed on record an invoice for Rs. 5699/- showing the purchase of the mobile handset from OP2.  It is also placed on record a customer receipt issued by OP1 in respect of the deposit of the same within it.  Before filing the complaint the complainant had served a legal notice dated 11.7.2014 on the Ops.  The Ops had failed to comply or refute the allegations leveled in the notice. It has been held in a no of cases that where serious allegations are  leveled in the notice and the noticee does not refuyte the same by means of a reply a presumption may be drawn the the assumption made in the notice are ture. A similar situtate has been noticed in this complaint and  a presumption needs to be drawn in this case that the story putforth is true. Even otherwise, there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on record by the complainant. We, therefore, hold OP1 deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The mobile handset was deposited with it for repairs and it had failed to return it repaired or otherwise. We, therefore, direct OP1 as under:

  1. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 5699/- along with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 22.9.2014 till payment.
  2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation suffered by the complainant which will include cost of litigiaotn.  

        The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall belliable to pay interest onthe entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with thi;s order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open s

                              

itting of the Forum on.....................

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR SHARMA]
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.