DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 472/2015
Date of Institution- 09/07/2015
Date of Order - 05/08/2016
In matter of
Master Kartik Varma-minor
Through mother Smt Geeta Varma, adult
R/o-1/5626,Gali no. 13,
Balbir Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi 110032..………………………..……………….…..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-Gulati Communication
138 Chota Bazar,
Shahdara, Delhi 110032
2-Easy Mobile Solution,
D-182, 1st floor,
Freedom Fighters Colony,
Neb sarai, IGNOU Road, New Delhi 110068………………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate-Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Opponents- Ex Parte
Corum- 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
Mrs Geeta Verma mother of her minor son Kartik verma purchased a Samsung mobile model GRAND new 9060, EMEI-352742068342667 on 19/11/2014 for a sum of Rs 12,150/- from OP1. The receipt/invoice vide Sr no.-5243 and the same phone was insured by OP2 for two years after receiving Rs 1215 against all damages. The said phone developed screen problem after some time and complainant’s mother took the phone to OP1 from where she had purchased. OP1 adviced to get the phone repaired from OP2 who was the authorized service provider and had insured the phone.
Complainant went to OP2 address, but was surprised to see that there was no such address. She then informed OP1 about the status of OP2. OP1 refused to help her. As per complaint, complainant’s mother got mentally and physically harassed for defective services and unfair trade practice by OP1.
Hence filed this complaint claiming cost of said mobile a sum of Rs 12,150/- with Rs 40,000/- as harassment and mental agony and pain suffered due to defective services and unfair trade practice. She has also claimed litigation charge Rs 13,000/-.
Complaint along with annexure were scrutinized and notices were served. Notice to OP1 was served, but OP2 was returned with remark as “No such address”. Even on new address given by complainant’s mother was not served to OP2. OP1 filed his brief and stated that he had sold a new product along with warranty of two years and had submitted a retail invoice showing description of the said phone.
OP1 has also stated that he had no liability and it was OP2 to repair or replace the product as the said product had two years warranty and insured by OP2. OP1 had also submitted the address of insurance provider. OP2 did not put his appearance or submitted written statement or any evidence. OP1 submitted that complainant’s mother had got her phone serviced after 8 months and of her own.
Complainant filed their evidences on affidavit. OP did not file any affidavit nor argued on the date of argument. Arguments were heard.
After going through the facts and evidences on record and hearing argument, it was made clear that OP2 had unfair trade practice by receiving insurance amount and giving two years warranty through OP1, but his own address was not available. OP2’s address was given by OP1. As the insurance amount was received by OP1 on behalf of OP2 at the time of selling the mobile and gave false assurance about OP2 as authorized service centre clearly proves unfair trade practice between OP1 and OP2 for cheating innocent consumers for one reason or other.
This clearly shows that OP1 was equally responsible in unfair trade practice for OP2 in minting money by dubious means. As complainant had paid the required amount for insurance and had two years warranty which was given by OP1 on behalf of OP2, so in absence of OP2, it was obligatory on OP1 to get the said phone repaired when defect occurred.
We come to the conclusion that OPs conduct was deficient and unfair in providing services to the complainant. So we allow this complaint and pass the following order-
OPs are directed to get the said mobile repaired within 30 days from the receiving of this order. Failing to comply this order, OPs shall refund the cost of the mobile for a sum of Rs 12,150/- along with 12% interest from the date of filling of this complaint till realized.
We also award compensation for a sum of Rs 2000/ for harassment, mental agony and pain caused to complainant due to the deficient services of OPs with a sum of Rs 1000/- as the cost of litigation. The order has to be complied in the time essence. If OPs fail to comply the order, then entire awarded amount shall carry the same interest till realization.
The order copy 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
