Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/426/16 Date of Institution:- 01.09.2016 Order Reserved on:- 15.04.2024 Date of Decision:- 29.05.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Sudesh Kumar, R/o House No. RZ B-171 B- Block, RoshanVihar, Gali No.7, Phase-I, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 .….. Complainant VERSUS M/s ShriShyam Mobile Solutions Through its owner/A.R. B Block, Old RoshanPura, Near Unique Health Care Chhawla Bus Stand, Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043 .…..Opposite Part Per Dr.HarshaliKaur, Member - The complainant purchased a mobile handset model No. Gionne- P3 bearing IMEI No. 863404025619172 for a sum of Rs. 7000/- on 06.05.2014 fromFriend’s Mobile at DakshinDinapur. He was issued a tax invoice Sl. No. 79 towards the purchase. ANNEXURE-1is the copy of the invoice issued on 06.05.2014 towards the complainant’s purchase.
- The complainant alleges that his mobile phone became defective, and he visited the shop/office of the OP for its repair on 29.03.2016. The engineer of the OP checked his mobile and informed him that there was some defect in the display of his mobile phone. The repair cost was estimated at Rs. 150/- and the OP technician asked the complainant to collect his mobile the next day. ANNEXURE-2is the copy of the receipt of the complainant’s mobile by the OP.
- When the complainant visited the OP shop to collect his repaired mobile, he was told that it would take more time as the display of his mobile had been damaged and the power on/off button was not working. The OP engineer informed the complainant that the display would be replaced and quoted Rs. 600/- excluding the repair costs.Despite visiting several times, the OP did not hand over the repaired mobile and also did not receive the written request dated 18.06.2016 (ANNEXURE-3).
- Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this forum, seeking directions to the OP to refund the cost of the mobile, i.e., Rs. 7000/- or to alternatively replace the mobile with a new working mobile, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, pain and agony, Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.
- Notice was issued to the OP, who did not appear despite adequate notice. Hence, the OP was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 28.10.2016. The complainant filed his affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments stated in his complaint and filed his written arguments. Thereafter, the complainant did not appear despite several opportunities, and hence, we found it prudent to decide this case on the basis of the material already on record.
- We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and have perused the documents filed by the complainant to substantiate his testimony.
- We find that the complainant purchased a GIONNE- P3 mobile for a sum of Rs. 7000/- on 06.05.2014 from the Friend’s Mobile Shop. ANNEXURE-1 is the copy of the invoice annexed with the complaint.
- After approximately 2 years, the complainant found some defects in his mobile and submitted it to the OP, a service centre, for repair on 29.03.2016. The complainant has placed ANNEXURE-2 on record, which is the handwritten slip with the estimated cost of Rs. 750/- for the repair, as intimated to him by the OP engineer.
- The complainant alleges that the defective mobile was submitted to the OP for repair on 29.03.2016 and has not been returned after the defects were removed. The complainant alleges that his daughter visited the OP shop on 18.06.2016 to lodge a complaint, which was not received by the OP,who has not returned his mobile to date.
- The OP is ex-parte, and we are of the considered opinion that the complainant, who had handed over his phone to the OP, believing in his promise to repair his mobile at payable cost, was unable to ful fil their promise and hence was deficient in the service provided to the complainant.
- We,therefore, have no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s un rebutted and uncontroverted testimony. Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OP to return the phone of the complainant or alternatively to pay the complainant a sum amount of Rs. 8,000/- as cost of the phone used by the complainant for at least one and a half years inclusive of litigation costs for not repairing and returning his mobile phone.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 29.05.2024.
| |