Paramjeet Singh filed a consumer case on 03 Jun 2017 against J.K. Watch Company in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/745 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Jul 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri
Date of institution:13.11.2014
Complaint Case. No.745/14 Date of order: 03.06.2017
IN MATTER OF
ShriParamjeet Singh, H.No.86A, VikasPuriExtention, ChanderViharNilothiExtn. Near Jamidar Property, Nangloi New Delhi-110041 Complainant
VERSUS
M/S J.K. Watch Company and Mobile Shop,B-150 Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi-18
Opposite party-1
M/S Taneja Service Center(Authorised Nokia Service Center), N.D.Traders, UG-08Vishvadeep Building, District Center, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058 Opposite party-2
M/S CelkonImpex Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor Block 02, My Home Hub,Mahapur, Hi-Tech City, Hyderabad-500081(India) Opposite party-3
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
Briefly facts of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant purchased one mobile hand set make “CELKON A9 PLUS” on29.09.2013 for sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-(Rs. Four Thousands) vide invoice no.582 from theopposite party no.1 with one year warrantymanufactured by the opposite party no.3. The mobile handset developed fault in month of January 2014.The complainant deposited the handset with the authorized service centrethe opposite party no.2 for repairs within warranty on 10.09.2014. The opposite party no.2 told the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset after 15 days. But when the complainant visited the opposite party no.2 the mobile handset was not repaired. The mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned by theopposite party no.2. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of the mobile handset, pay Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten Thousands)compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-(Rs.Five Thousands) as litigation expenses.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of the opposite parties despite service. Therefore, the opposite partieswere proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.04.2016.
When the complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint and relied upon invoice no.582 dated 29.09.2013 and job sheets dated 18.01.2014 and 10.09.2014.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
The complainant from unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit and documents has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset make “CELKON A9 PLUS” on29.09.2013 for sale consideration of Rs.4,000/-(Rs. Four Thousands).The handset was given for repairs on 10.09.2014 within warranty to the opposite party no.2 authorized service centre of the opposite party no.3. The mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned to the complainant. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2 authorized service Centre of the opposite party no.3. The complainant suffered loss of mobile handset. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refundthe cost of mobile handset and paycompensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.
In light of above discussion and observations we direct the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to refund Rs.4,000/-(Rs. Four Thousands) cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization and pay Rs.1,000/-(Rs. One Thousand) for compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
Order pronounced on :03.06.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) (R.S. BAGRI)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.