Delhi

East Delhi

CC/257/2017

ANKIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAIN MOBILE STORE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.        257 / 2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  02/08/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 03/04/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/04/2019  In matter of

Mr. Ankit Gupta         

s/o Sh shyam Sunder  

R/o  5/357 Mohalla Maharam   

Shahdara Delhi 121032………………....……………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Jain Mobile Store  

500/2F, Gali no. 6, 60 Ft Road,    

Vishwash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032

 

2- The Manager, Panasonic India,  

12^th floor, Ambience Tower

Ambience Island, NH 8, Lane no. V-10

DLF, Phase 3, Sec. 24, Gurugram, Haryana-122002  

 

3-The Manager,

I Pick Solutions India Pvt Ltd.

F-25, 1^st Floor, Above KFC Restaurant,

Preet Vihar Delhi 110092 ………………..……...…………..……….Opponents

 

Complainant’ Advocate                     Mr Vikram Singh  

Opponent 1-Advocate                       Nemo / Ex Parte  

Opponent 2                                         Mr Sandeep Thukral , Kapil Kher

Opponent 3                                         Nemo / Ex Parte

                                               

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case  -

Complainant purchased Panasonic Sarthi GD 25C mobile handset from OP1 having IMEI 3549680671754 on 28/10/2016 for a sum of Rs 2000/-vide invoice no. 465 (Ex CW1/1) manufactured by OP2. The pickup services were provided by OP3/ I Pickup Solutions. The said mobile worked well over three months, but developed some charging problems on 03/02/2017 so took mobile to OP3 who told that “Hands Free Problem” had developed. The charging point part was replaced by OP3 as mobile was under warranty (Ex CW1/2). Again on 31/05/2017 developed same problem and again was taken to OP3, but this time OP3 refused to provide any service and hand set was returned without repair (Ex CW1/3). It was stated that OP3 asked   for service charges, but it was refused to pay. Seeing deficient services of OP3, filed this complaint and claimed sum of Rs 2000/-with compensation Rs 10,000/- and litigation charges Rs 10,000/-.

OP 2 submitted written statement, but neither OP1 nor OP3 submitted their written statement and evidences despite of serving repeatedly, so preceded Ex Parte. OP2 admitted that complainant purchased handset and had worked well over three months, but said mobile developed charging problem which was due to breakage of charging point. As the mobile was in warranty so the part was replaced. But after three months same problem occurred which was due to damage of charging socket and was tampered from audio jack and required to be charged for the part, but complainant refused to pay, so handset was returned to the complainant. Hence there was no deficiency in the service of OP3.

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied replies submitted by OP2 and stated that mobile  was under warranty despite of this, services were not given and charges were asked to pay. Hence there was deficiency in the service on the part of OP3. He also filed his evidences by way of affidavit of himself and reaffirmed on oath that OP3 had intentionally refused services and asked for charges. Complainant relied on invoice (Ex CW1/1) and job sheet (Ex CW1/2) with second job sheet where tempering of audio Jack was mentioned which was wrong (Ex CW1//3). The hand set was under warranty. So his complaint may be considered and handset amount be paid with compensation. 

OP2 filed their evidence through affidavit of Mr Arjun Tanwar, AR and supported contentions of their written statement. Hence submitted that there was no deficiency on OP3 and also there was neither manufacturing defect nor any guarantee for replacement was ever given.  

 

Both the parties submitted their written arguments and stressed their defence. We have perused the file as non of the parties appeared to ague. So order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that OP3 had provided first service and the defective part was replaced, but in second time, the audio jack was damaged due to tempering and the same part required replacement on charge for which complainant had refused. That being so this complaint has no merit and same deserve to be dismissed, but as the said mobile was under warranty so complainant is advised to get his mobile repaired fomOP3 in 30 days after paying cost of damaged part. OP3 will not charge for its services as mobile was under warranty. There shall be no order to cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President