Delhi

North East

CC/245/2017

Sh. Amar nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lukshya Tecnology Solution Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 245/17

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Amarnath S/o Late Shri Fagu R/o:- 40A, Block-A, Gali No. 1 Aanand Kunj, Ankur Vihar Karawal Nagar Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	Lakshya Technical Solution Ltd. 230, 2nd Floor, Sukhlal Complex Shiva Market, Pitampura New Delhi-110034   Data Wind Innovation Pvt. Ltd. 563, East Mohan Nagar, Dhan Dhan Baba Deep Singh Ji Complex Amritsar-143006   Lakhshya Authorize Gurukul Mobile Repair Centre F-397, Khazoori Khaas Delhi-110094	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

26.07.2017 27.04.2022 01.06.2022

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased Datawind Pocketsurfer 3G4 IMEI No. 911300154118535 mobile phone manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2 on 26.07.2015 a sum of Rs. 2,900/- vide invoice no. 870. However, problem regarding charging of the mobile phone started after one month of its purchase. On 11.03.2016 Complainant went to Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. (authorize service centre, Lakshya Authorized Gurukul Mobile Repair). It is submitted by the Complainant that the employee of Opposite Party No. 3 gave him number 0183-66668500/983-5141330 of Datawind Centre, Punjab and told him that he will have to take docket number first then phone can be taken for repair. Again Complainant went to Opposite Party No. 3 and handed over the said mobile phone along with bill. It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite party No. 3 told him that mobile will be sent to Opposite Party No. 2 for repair after 7 to 15 days they will inform the Complainant. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No. 3 did not give any response despite waiting for 15 days about the said mobile phone, after 45 days when Complainant went to Opposite Party No. 3 for taking the mobile, Opposite Party No. 3 offered him another mobile phone and the Complainant refused to accept the same. Despite his effort and persuasion Complainant could not get his mobile phone from the Opposite Party No. 2 & Opposite Party No. 3.
2. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to Opposite Parties to refund the cost of mobile phone. He has also claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, financial loss and loss of business.
3. Complainant  has attached copy of invoice dated 26.07.2015, copy of job card dated 11.03.2016, copy of e-mails, copy of service support system and copy of warranty card.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3

4. The Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed joint written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 that they are authorized agency for providing post sale service as per policy of Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, the complaint against the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 that mobile phone of the Complainant was received and the same was sent to Opposite Party No. 2 through courier “FedEx” on 19.03.2016. It is stated that another mobile phone was sent to the Complainant but he refused accept the same. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 again the second mobile phone sent to Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter replaced/swapped mobile set was again offered to Complainant but Complainant again refused to take the mobile second time by saying that he would receive only the mobile phone initially purchased by him.
6. Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.03.2018.
7. Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence

8. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has relied upon the averments made in the complaint and the documents filed along with complaint. The Opposite Parties did not give evidence.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and have perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased mobile phone Rs. 2,900/- on 26.07.2015 from Shri Telecom. It is his case that there was some defect in respect of the charging the mobile phone. He approached Opposite Party No. 3 which is service centre of the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 is also service centre of Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that his mobile phone was taken by Opposite Party No. 3 for rectifying the fault of the mobile phone. It is his case that his mobile phone was not returned back despite various requests made by him. It is the case of the Complainant some other mobile phone which was old one in a bad condition was being given to him by the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 but he refused to accept the same.  
10. The Opposite Party No.2 did not context the case and was proceeded ex-parte. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No. 3 is that the mobile phone of the Complainant was being replaced by another mobile phone but the Complainant refused to accept the same.
11.  Thus from the record is revealed that mobile phone which was purchased by the Complainant was not working properly and had some charging problem. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 is that the mobile phone of the Complainant was being replaced with some other mobile phone but Complainant refused to accept the same. The case of the Complainant is that he did not accept the mobile phone which was being offered to him by Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 as the same was an old one and was in a bad condition. The Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 did not lead any evidence to show that the mobile phone which was being given to the Complainant by them in place of the mobile phone of the Complainant was new one or otherwise working properly. The defence of Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No. 3 cannot be believed.
12.  Therefore in view of the above discussion it is proved that Complainant had purchased a mobile phone which was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2 was defected and was not working properly. The said mobile phone was handed over by the Complainant with the service centre of Opposite Party No. 2. It is also proved that mobile phone of the Complainant was not repaired and he was not offered other new phone in place of his old phone.  The Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said mobile phone thus it has the liability to pay compensation to the Complainant.
13. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,900/- (i.e. the cost of mobile phone) to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the recovery of the said amount. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the Complainant as compensation on account of harassment along with interest @ 6 % from the date of this order till the recovery of this amount. Ordered accordingly.
14.  Order announced on 01.06.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President