DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.104/2017
Chander Shekhar,
S/o Sh. Ram Naresh,
R/o H.No.69, Ground Floor,
Near Govind Puri Metro Station, Kalkaji,
New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
- International Value Retail Pvt. Ltd.
Yusuf Sarai-I, Store,
48/4, ModiRaj Building, Aurbindo Marg, Delhi
AND
D-55, Mobility Building, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Delhi-110020
- Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
D/3136-39, Oberoi Garden Estate,
Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri, (East),
Mumbai-400072
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 22.03.2017
Date of Order : 14.11.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Succintly put, Complainant purchased HTC Desire Mobile Phone from International Value Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) on 10.01.2016 by paying consideration of Rs.19,990/-.
2. Complainant got his phone insured at the insistence of OP-1 and paid Rs.1,749/- for a period of one year, from Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). It is stated that in the second week of December, 2016, mobile screen of Complainant got damaged and when the Complainant approached the service centre, they demanded payment for changing the screen. The complainant provided the invoice and insurance paper to the service centre but they flatly refused stating that Complainant’s phone is not covered with the insurance for screen damage. It is stated that the Complainant since 19.12.2016 has been regularly mailing and requesting the OPs to look into the matter but despite repeated reminders OPs have not solved the issue and the problem in the phone is still persisting.
3. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice Complainant approached this Commission for directions to OP-1 to refund the money amounting to Rs.19,990/- and that OP-2 be directed to refund Rs.1,749/- charged for the insurance. Additionally it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh for loss and damage as well as physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.
4. As none appeared on behalf of OPs upon service OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2017. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions are filed by the Complainant.
5. Averments made by the Complainant have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant.
6. Complainant in support of his case has placed retail invoice and e-mails sent to OP for repairing the phone. After having perused the documents placed before us it is seen that the complainant despite having paid the consideration to OP-1 for the phone as well as for insurance from OP-2, complainant was not provided service by OPs. We are of the opinion that the complainant was entitled to get his phone repaired after having paid for the insurance cover. It is seen that complainant’s phone was insured by OP-2at the insistence and from the premises of OP-1.
7. Therefore we find OPs to be deficient in their services and also indulging in unfair trade practice that after having received consideration the services promised to the complainant were not provided. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.19,990/- plus Rs.1,749/- to the complainant within three months with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint. The above stated amount shall be paid within three months failing which OP shall pay Rs21,739/@9% till realisation.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
