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.282/2011
SH. VIRENDER KUMAR
S/O SH. SURYA DEV YADAV,
R/O B-185, DAKSHINPURI,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S LAXMI SANCHAR HAAT,
B-18, MARKET, DAKSHINPURI,
NEW DELHI-110062
- M/S NOKIA
NRI COMMUNICATION,
09, FIRST FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110024
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:26.05.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.7,500/- on 27.7.2010 from OP-1, dealer of OP-2. The said mobile phone had a warranty of one year.
The case of complainant is that the phone became defective after six months and he took the phone to the service centre of OP-1 at Okhla. Instead of repairing the phone, he was harassed, abused and threatened. Complainant also made a complaint to the police. Finding no alternative, complainant filed the present complaint against both the OPs and prayed that OP-2 be directed either to repair the phone or to replace the said phone and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
OP-1 in its reply has not disputed that the mobile phone was purchased by complainant from their shop and the same was having warranty of one year. It is not in dispute that complainant approached them and told about the defects in the mobile phone. OP-1 directed complainant to go to the service centre of OP-2. In fact complainant is not claiming any relief against OP-1 and the relief is being claimed against OP-2. In rejoinder complainant has specifically stated that he is not claiming any claim against OP-1.
Nobody appeared on behalf of OP-2 despite service. OP-2 was proceeded exparte.
We have heard complainant and carefully perused the record.
Complainant has placed on record the delivery note dated 03.04.2011 issued by OP-2 which shows that the damage has been caused due to liquid hence the same is not covered under the warranty. The contention of complainant is that there was no question of damage caused due to liquid and the same has been mentioned by OP-1 just to defeat its claim. There is no reason to disbelieve complainant. OP should have appeared in the court to prove that the damage was caused to mobile phone due to liquid. In the absence of that, no reliance can be placed on the delivery note dated 03.04.2011. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.
OP-2 is directed to refund Rs.7,500/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with 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) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
