DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 782/15
MOHD. SHAHID
S/O SHAKIL AHMED
R/O, H. NO. E-6/97, STREET NO.2,
SUN LIGHT COLONY, SEELAMPUR,
DELHI-110095 ….Complainant
Vs
M-TALK,
75, VIJAY BLOCK, VIKAS MARG,
OPP. METRO PILLAR NO.-51,
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092 ….Opponent
Date of Institution: 06.10.2015
Judgment Reserved for: 08.07.2016
Judgment Passed on: 27.07.2016
Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
The present complaint has been filed u/s 12 of CPA against OP, M-Talk alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The complainant had purchased a HTC Mobile from OP on 02/03/2015 for a sum of Rs.23,999/- vide invoice no. 3311 and IMEI NO. 357585061668561, 357585061668579 and insured it by paying Rs.2390/- for two years.
It is stated that his mobile fell in water on 16/08/2015 and he approached the OP and was told that he will be handed over the phone within 15 days after repair. It is further stated that officer of OP informed the complainant that the insurance company has closed and returned the dead mobile to the complainant.
The complainant has prayed for the refund of the cost of the mobile, i.e of Rs. 23,999/-, compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony amounting to Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP was duly served, but did not put appearance, thus, was proceeded ex-parte on 21/12/2015.
The complainant in support of his case filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and examined Shri. Mohd Shahid, the complainant herein. He has placed on record the retail invoice dated 02/03/2015 for Rs. 23,900/-, one receipt for insurance of HTC Desire 820 in the name of Mohd. Shahid.
We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has proved that he has purchased the phone from M-Talk and had got the phone insured against liquid damage. The Mobile Phone was under two years warranty against Liquid & physical damage & one year service warranty.
We are of the opinion that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice by representing that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant was under warranty and it shall be repaired, at the same time OP was also responsible for deficiency in services, by not providing repairs despite the fact that mobile phone was still covered under warranty period.
Therefore, It is directed to the OP to refund Rs.21,000/- as the cost of the mobile, Rs.2,390/- as amount paid for insurance, Rs.10,000/- towards the compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.7,500/- as the cost of litigation.
In case, the said amount has not been paid by the O.P. within 45 days from the date of receiving this order, the same is also recoverable along with 9% interest from the date of the order till the recovery of the said amount.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. P.N.TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA) (SUKHDEV SINGH)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT