DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.140/2016
Sh. Gaurav Gupta
R/o C-1/24, Street No.4,
Amar Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
New Delhi-110094 ….Complainant
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/Signatories
A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3,
District Center, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
2. Best Mobile Services Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director/Proprietor
F-3/17 Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051
3. Y. K. Telecom
Through its Proprietor/Partners
C-81/2, Main Bhajanpura,
New Delhi-110053
4. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
(Authorized Service Centre)
Through its Director/Signatories
A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3,
District Centre Saket,
New Delhi-110017
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 12.05.2016 Date of Order : 10.11.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
MS. NAINA BAKSHI, MEMBER
As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased a mobile phone model LG-D690G3, IMEI No. 356272066587234 manufactured by OP No.1 from OP No.3 on 07.02.2015. The complainant was lured by the OP No.3 and he paid Rs.1750/- in the name of OP No.2 for insurance which includes cashless protection plan including safety from mechanical & electrical damages, accidental damage, liquid damage, extended warranty, theft and doorstep pick and drop facility was also provided by taking 10% of invoice value i.e. Rs.1750/-. It is further stated as follows:-
“5. Thereafter, the complainant inquired more about Respondent No.2 on which the executive of the Respondent No.3 said I am the guarantor of Respondent No.2. I will take money on their behalf and as it is the Complainant had already seen the shop of the Respondent No.3. That the Respondent No.3’s executive further stated that there shop is an established one and moreover the mobile belongs to the highly reputed company i.e. L.G. (Respondent No.1 herein.) After hearing these words the complainant paid the additional amount of Rs.1750/- on 07-02-2015 and mob care customer copy of BMS (Best mobile service) was provided to him bearing S.No.12256 with 2 years plan term.”
On 03.03.2015 the phone accidently slipped from his hand and due to this reason the complainant called the OP No.2 to pick up the phone from his residence and repair the same as it was covered under the insurance scheme. The representative of OP No.2 Mr. Pritam came to his residence and collected the phone and also gave a job sheet for the same. At that time, the phone was in working condition and only a blank spot was appearing on the top right corner where the phone was damaged. The complainant was waiting to receive the intimation from the OP No.2. On 26.03.15 when he called OP No.2 regarding the status of the phone, the OP No.2 informed him that as per the OP No.4 the phone was non-repairable. The OP No.2 also informed him that they are sending one of their executives to collect all the accessories of the said phone and would be releasing settlement /compensation amount of 40-50% of the total mobile value of the mobile phone but, however, the complainant informed the OP No.2 that he was not interested to settle the matter. It is submitted that the complainant was waiting for the intimation but neither the OP No.2 nor the OP No.3 gave any intimation. Thereafter, the complainant has been regularly trying to contact the OP No.2 but no action was taken by them to resolve the grievance of the complainant. The complainant has suffered irreparable loss due to unavailability of the handset and also suffered mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service of OP No.2, 3 & 4. It is submitted that the OP No.2, 3 & 4 informed that the OP No.1 does not have any policy to refund/exchange the mobile but when the complainant asked the OP No.2 to give this in writing they refused to give the same. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OPs:
“a. The respondents to pay back a sum of Rs.17,500/- (Seventeen thousand Five hundred only) spent on the purchasing of the said mobile phone along with Rs.1750 (One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) towards the money spent to purchase the insurance by the complainant.
b. The respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment suffered due to the negligence and recklessness of the respondents;
c. The respondents to provide for cost of the proceedings in the sum of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only).
OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.09.2016. Order sheets dated 12.08.16 and 02.09.16 read as under:-
“Case No.140/16
“12.08.16
Present: Sh. Saurab Singh Adv. for the Complainant
None for OPs
As per the track reports OP No.1, 2 and 3 have been served with the notices on 21.07.16, 23.07.16 & 21.07.16 respectively.
Written statement on behalf of the OPs may be filed. Adjourned to 02.09.16 for further orders.”
“Case No. 140/16
02.09.16
Present: Sh. Saurabh Singh Adv. for the Complainant
None for OPs
As recorded in the previous order sheet OP No.1, 2 & 3 have been served with the notices on 21.07.16, 23.07.16 & 21.07.16 respectively. Hence, OPs are proceeded exparte. Adjourned to 07.11.16 for exparte evidence.”
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence and also written arguments.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant has filed a copy of the retail invoice dated 07.02.2015 of Rs.17,500/- (copy Ex. CW1/A). Copy Ex. CW1/B relates to the insurance cover note from Mob Care (Best Mobile Service) dated 07.02.2015. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.05.2015 to the OPs alongwith postal receipt (copies Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D). Copy of the job card has been filed on the record which we mark as Mark CA for the purposes of identification which proves that “touch and display damage” was found in the mobile phone in question and its body was badly damaged.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
Accordingly, we hold the OP No.2 guilty of deficiency in service. We allow the complaint and direct the OP No.2 to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs.17,500/- and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation to him.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.17500/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 10.11.2017.
