Delhi

East Delhi

CC/724/2015

JAVED KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HTC - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2017

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. 724/15

 

Shri Javed Alam

S/o Mohd. Idrish

R/o 26/6, Khureji Khas

Street No. 5, Delhi – 110 051                                                     ….Complainant

Vs.

1. HTC

38A, Bungalow Road

Kamla Nagar, Opp. Amitabh Banquet

new Delhi – 110 007

 

2. Amit Sharma

A-117, Shakarpur, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Sanjeev Dhamija

Proprietor - Cell Well Communication

A-117, Shakarpur, Main Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                                    ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 01.10.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 21.07.2017

Judgment Passed on : 26.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Present complaint has been filed by Shri Javed Alam, the complainant with allegations of deficiency in service against HTC (OP-1), Shri Amit Sharma and Shri Sanjeev Dhamija, (OP-2 & 3) (distributors of HTC company) with prayer of directions to OPs to refund Rs. 24,000/- towards the cost of the mobile phone, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.         Facts in brief are that on 07.11.2014, the complainant purchased one HTC mobile, model D820, IMEI No. 354920060103117 for Rs. 24,500/- from OP-1 and OP-2.  It is stated that the complainant got the said handset insured from purple insurance for which retail invoice/cash memo bearing no. 7178 dated 07.11.2014 was issued.  On 22.05.2015, the complainant approached OP-1 and OP-2 as the handset had some issue with touch screen, where he was informed that the same needed replacement and 2 days repair time was sought.  An endorsement for the receipt of the handset for repairs was issued.  The handset was not returned despite several visits to the OPs.  The complainant has stated that OPs misbehaved and threatened him with dire consequences, in case he visited to OPs shop. 

            Legal notice dated 04.07.2015 was served upon OPs, which was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint. 

            Copy of invoice and insurance dated 07.11.2014, copy of acknowledgement of receipt of mobile dated 22.05.2014, copy of legal notice alongwith dispatch receipts are annexed with the complaint.

3.         OPs were served with the notice of the complaint, but neither did they appear nor did they file their reply, thus they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         Complainant filed his ex-parte evidence and deposed the averments made in the complaint.  The complainant got exhibited invoice of mobile phone (Ex.CW1/A), receipt issued for insurance (Ex.CW1/B), visiting card (Ex.CW1/C), endorsement for receipt of mobile (Ex.CW1/D) and copy of legal notice (Ex.CW1/E).

            He has stated that OPs had convinced the complainant to get the handset insured for 2 years warranty against liquid and physical damage and fifteen months theft.

5.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  As OPs have been proceeded ex-=parte, the allegations against them have remained uncontroverted.  The complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1/B, the receipt issued for insurance.  Thus, the complainant has successfully proved that his handset was duly insured, when the handset was insured against accidental damage for 2 years commencing from 07.11.2014 to 06.11.2016, the complainant was entitled to get the same repaired.

            The complainant has stated that he had handed over the handset to OPs for repairs, which was duly acknowledged. As OP-1 and OP-2 have failed to handover the repaired handset to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service. 

            Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OPs to return the repaired handset.  Although, the complainant has not impleaded insurance company as party, but the fact remains the same that the handset was handed over to the OPs for repair and endorsement is also issued by them.  OPs are at liberty to recover the cost of repair from the insurance company.  We also award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.  Rs. 2,500/- is also awarded as litigation expenses.  The said order be complied within 30 days.    

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                            (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                   Member        

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President