ANJU filed a consumer case on 11 Nov 2016 against GURU KIRPA COMM in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/576/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Mar 2017.
Delhi
East Delhi
CC/576/2015
ANJU - Complainant(s)
Versus
GURU KIRPA COMM - Opp.Party(s)
11 Nov 2016
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 576/15
Ms. ANJU KAUSHIK
R/O X/1183, GALI No-2,
RAJGARH COLONY, Delhi-110031
….Complainants
Vs
M/S GURU KIRPA COMMUNICATION
X/211, SATSUNG MARG,
CHAND MOHALLA, DELHI-110031.
M/S B2X SERVICE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.
F-25, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE KFC,
PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092
….Opponents
Date of Institution: 04.08.2015
Judgment Reserved for: 11.11.2016
Judgment Passed on: 30.11.2016
Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by Ms. Anju Kaushik against Guru Kripa Communication OP-1 & M/s B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. praying for direction to OPs refund Rs.53,000/- along with 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase, Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Apple I Phone-6 , 16GB on 18/01/2015 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.53,000/-(Fifty three thousand) vide bill No.1912. Within a month of purchase there was problem with hearing sound, micro phone and camera. The said mobile was not functioning properly for which the complainant approached OP-2. As the handset was under warranty it was duly repaired and returned by OP-2. Again after 20 days the complainant faced same problem that persisted earlier also, for which again she visited OP-2. This time Job Sheet dated 28/04/2015 was issued with complaint “low sound and hearing problem, camera has blur issue”. It is further stated that the mobile phone was not genuine and thus was not under warranty for which the complainant was asked to pay Rs.25,000/- for repairs. The complainant feeling aggrieved sent legal notice dated 25/06/2015 which was duly replied by OP-1.
The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and cheating on OPs. Invoice dated 18/01/2015, delivery & Job Sheet report, dated 28/04/2015, legal notice dated 25/06/2015 are annexed as Annexure C-1, Annexure C-2, & Annexure C-3 respectively.
Notice of the complaint was served on OPs but no one appeared on their behalf and hence they were proceeded ex-parte.
On 03/11/2015, the complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit where she examined herself and deposed the contents of the complaint on oath.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. Complainant has stated that the repair of her phone was denied by OP-2 with the reason “unauthorized modification found in the phone and thus returned without repair”. The complainant has stated that within a month of purchase there was problem with the sound, in microphone and camera which was repaired by OP-2. As, OP did not appear, all allegations made by the complainant have remained uncontroverted. It can be said that OP-2, in order to avoid their liability, have returned the unrepaired handset to the complainant with the remark of unauthorized modification (which means that the handset was given for unauthorized repair centre or engineer). Just by writing this, OP cannot evade its responsibility.
Hence, we direct OP-2 to repair the handset of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and extended warranty of six months from the date of receipt of repaired handset. If the defects in the handset cannot be removed then OP-2 is directed to replace the handset within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.
(P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
MEMBER MEMBER
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.