CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.536/2011
SH. RAJENDER SINGH
S/O LATE SH. MOHAR SINGH
R/O FLAT NO.B-15, PALIKA NIWAS,
LODHI COLONY, NEW DELHI-110003
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
MANAGER
IN TARVO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
G-4, 5, 6, CHANDRA BHAWAN, NEHRU PLACE,
NEAR ICICI BANK, NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 16.08.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia – Member
The facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset on 23.07.2007. The keypad of the mobile started malfunctioning on 11.12.2010 and mobile was sent to OPs for repair. Jobsheet dated 11.12.2010 is annexed with the complaint. The complainant repeatedly visited OP-2 for the repair of the handset but to no avail. Correspondence dated 21.03.2011 and 16.08.2011 are annexed with the complaint. Complainant also went to Mediation Centre but OPs failed to appear.
OP-1 was dropped from the array of parties on 28.02.2012 on request of complainant.
OP-2 in the reply has admitted that they are authorized service centre of Soni Ericsson and their name has been changed from R.T. Outsourcing Service Ltd. to In Tarvo Technologies Ltd. OP-2 has also admitted the jobsheet annexed with the complaint. It is stated that as the mobile was beyond the warranty period, the said problem could be rectified only after payment and the same was conveyed to complainant on the same date. OP further states that they were not able to replace the keypad of the handset as the payment for the same was not approved by the complainant.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder alongwith sworn affidavit in this regard. Complainant stated that he was ready to pay the cost of keypad of the handset but the same was not available with the OP at the given time. Complainant sent several notices and visited the OP’s office several times. Complaint also states in rejoinder that he visited the OP office on 23.04.2011 which is recorded in the entry register. Complainant further states that the keypad of the handset was replaced but the mobile screen had gone blank and was not working. Subsequently it was left with OP for further rectification. Furthermore the handset still lying with OP.
OP-2 failed to file an evidence and was proceeded ex parte on 24.09.2013. The entrustment of mobile phone of the complainant to the service centre is admitted by both the parties. The service centre has failed to repair the phone is also admitted. Perusal of the correspondence of the complainant to OP shows that the complainant has been repeatedly asking for repair of his mobile and feared that the mobile phone has been lost by the OP company. OP in the reply had nowhere sated that the phone has been returned to the complainant. OP has even not rebutted the contention of the complainant that even though the keypad was repaired the screen of the phone was not working and as such the phone was kept for rectification of the defect. OP has not filed any corresponding reply to various complaint letters of complainant.
OP-2 has been conspicuously silent after filing reply. The silence for such a long time is pernicious. No credence can be given to OP’s version that payment for keypad was asked as the admitted jobsheet does not reflect any payment to be made. It just contains the noting “Key pad is not working”.
In the absence of any evidence by the OP, we believe the contention of the complainant. We hence direct OP to return the handset of the complainant and finding it deficient in service, we award Rs.5,000/- towards harassment and agony caused to the complainant inclusive of litigation cost.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
