Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/876

SAGAR CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI SACHIDANAND MOBILE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2016

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution           : 23.12.15

 

Case. No. DF-III/876/2015/                                                                           Date of order         :  15.07.2016

In the matter of :-

Sh. Sagar Chaudhary,

D-1/22, Jeevan Park Pankha Road,

Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.                                                                                   Complainant

 

Vs.

Jai Sachidanand Mobile Store,

E-1/E-2, Sai Complex, Chanakya Place Part-1,

40 ft. Road, C-1, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110059.                                                                       Opposite Party-1

 

Home Serve,

27/5, Ashok Nagar,

New Delhi-110018.                                                                       Opposite Party-2

 

HTC Care Service,                                                                           Opposite Party-3

 (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

 

            The present complaint is filed by Sh. Sagar Chaudhary herein  complainant against Jai Sachidanand Mobile Store  and others U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  for  compensation on account of deficiency in service and harassment. 

 

-2-

            The brief relevant facts for disposal of the complaint are that one mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 12.8.14 from opposite party-1 vide invoice RI/14-15/3421 for sale consideration of Rs. 13,500/-.  The make and model of the phone is HTC Desire 516.   The mobile handset was insured by opposite party-2 on the same day at the shop of opposite party-1 on payment   of Rs. 1,350/- for two years vide Bill No. PPP-21026.   The mobile handset developed fault on 2.12.15 and was deposited on 3.12.15 with opposite party-3 for repairs.       The opposite party-3 issued a job sheet No. 20447.   The opposite party-3 informed through e-mail on 5.12.15 that the mother board of the mobile handset has developed some fault and approximately Rs. 4,800/- will be charged for replacement of the same.   The complainant  several times made telephonic calls to the opposite party-2. But no response was given by them.      The complainant visited the opposite party-1 and told the fault of the mobile handset.  They told the complainant to deposit the mobile handset with them for repairs.   Therefore, the complainant deposited the mobile handset on 14.12.15 with the opposite party-1.    The opposite party-1 told the complainant by 19.12.15 they will inform about status of the mobile handset.  But till 21.12.15 nobody informed the complainant.   Thereafter, he visited the opposite party-1 who told that they will inform the status of the mobile handset.  But no satisfactory response is given by opposite party-1. On 28.12.15, the complainant again visited opposite party-1 and they showed the papers of insurance to the complainant and told him that para No.6 of the insurance policy shows that if the phone is not repairable or the cost of repair is more than 60%  then 40%  of the purchase value amount will be given.  But the complainant told the opposite party-1 that his phone is for repairs and the cost of repairs is less than 40%. On this opposite party-1 threatened the

                                                                        -3-

complainant and told him to face dire consequences and returned the phone to the complainant.  They told him that the mobile handset is not covered under the protection plan.   Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,800/-, cost of repair, as given by opposite party-3 along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment.

                  Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite parties.   But none appeared on their behalf.     Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.2.16.

                       When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he filed affidavit dated 1.4.16 and relied upon invoice dated 12.8.14, insurance protection plan dated 12.8.14, job sheets dated 12.3.15 & 14.12.15  and copy of mail.   He has narrated the facts of the complaint once again in the affidavit dated 1.4.16.  He deposed that the mobile handset was insured with opposite party-2 for two years and was within extended warranty when it was given to opposite parties for repairs.  But they refused to repair the mobile.

 

            From the affidavit and perusal of the documents, it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset on 12.8.14 from opposite party-1 vide invoice No. RI/14-15/3421 for sale consideration of Rs. 13,500/-  The make  of the phone is HTC Desire 516.   The mobile hand set was   insured  on the same day by Home Serve (OP-2) at the shop of opposite party-1 on receipt of   of Rs. 1,350/- for two years vide Bill No. PPP-21026.   The mobile handset developed fault on 2.12.15 and same was deposited on 14.12.15 with Raja  

                                                                        -4-

 

employee of opposite party-1 for repairs.   The     mobile handset was returned by opposite party-1 without repair stating that it is not covered under protection plan.

        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

         The version of the complainant has remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.   Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by him.  The complainant from affidavit, invoice and job sheets has been able to show that one mobile handset of make HTC Desire 516 was purchased from opposite party-1 vide invoice dated 12.8.14 for sum of Rs. 13,500/. The mobile hand set was insured on the same day by homeserve (op- 2) at the shop of opposite party 1 on receipt of Rs 1350/ by the complainant for two years vide bill no ppp-21026.   The mobile handset developed some fault and  it was given to Raja employee of opposite party-1 for repairs on 14.12.15.  The mobile was covered under protection plan.     The opposite party-1 without repair returned the handset to the complainant.   Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties-1 & 2.   The complainant is deprived of his right to use the  mobile hand set. He has also suffered loss of the mobile set.

            The complainant purchased the mobile hand set on 12.08.14 for sum of Rs 13,500/-. He insured the set for Rs 1350/-. The mobile set developed fault on 3.12.15. Since then the complainant is running after the opposite parties for repair of the mobile hand set. The opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to repair the

                                                                        -5-

 

mobile hand set. Therefore we are of the opinion that after deducting depreciation  of the mobile hand set the complainant is entitled to  to Rs 12000/- towards loss of the mobile handset. The complainant has also suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. Therefore, he is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 5000/-, on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.             In the light of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties 1 and 2 . Therefore, we direct the opposite parties-1 & 2 to pay  of Rs 12000/- the depreciated value of the mobile hand set with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of filing of the present complainant till actual realisation of the amount  and Rs 5000/- on account of compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.   

Order pronounced on   :

 

• Compliance of the order be made within the 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT