Delhi

North East

CC/408/2014

Piyush Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S. Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

Complaint Case No. 408/14

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.A. Zaidi

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. N.A. Alvi

 

In the matter of:

Sh. Piyush Sharma S/o Ram Nivas Sharma

R/o 1/4101, Ram Nagar Extn.

Near Goda Mandir Street,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.                                                                                        Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1. M.S. Electronics Shop No. 1/2284,

Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar,

Shahdara, Delhi-32.

2. Salvia Communication Pvt. Ltd.

Service Partner Add R-51, 1^st Floor,

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-92.

3. Shyam Telecom Ltd.

C-165, Naraina Industrial Area,

Phase-1, New Delhi-28.                                                      Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01-10-2014

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      : 15-05-2015

Order

 

N.A. Zaidi, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

 

By way of present complaint, complainant has alleged that he has purchased a mobile phone, of MTS make Model Duet-M790, on 24-8-13 from OP1 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4800/-. The said mobile bears IMEI No. 867674014690865. After 3 months the mobile became defective. Complainant approached its service centre at service city 2^nd floor Sagar Plaza behind PSK, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar Delhi-92. This service centre replaced mobile with another phone bearing IMEI No. 867674014688406, but the said phone also worked only 3-4 days. On further complaint the service centre told the complainant that certain parts, required, shall reach in a week and only thereafter your mobile will be rectified. Thereafter, the complainant visited the service centre a number of times but with no positive response and in the last he was told that they have stopped servicing for MTS. On 5-8-14 complainant approached another service centre where mobile was deposited against token No. 468, to be returned after 8 days when after 8 days complainant approached this service centre again he was given further time. Thereafter again and again he was asked to wait some more. In this manner even after passing 50 days the service centre has not rectified and returned the mobile and the same is still lying in service centre. Complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of mobile being Rs. 4800/- alongwith damages of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation beside compensation for mental and physical agony.

            Notices sent to OPs were served on 20-11-14 but none appeared and they were proceeded against ex-parte.

            Complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and relevant documents i.e. invoice and jobsheet.

            Heard and perused the record.

            As per invoice the said mobile was duly purchased by the complainant from OP1 after paying a sale consideration of Rs. 4800/- on 24-8-13. Service centre got the mobile deposited for repair vide jobsheet dated 8-5-14. There is no warranty card on record. However, deposit of the mobile by service centre is sufficient proof of the fact that the mobile in question was covered under the warranty at the particular time. As none appeared and raised any defence the evidence by the complainant facts alleged with supporting documents remain uncontroverted and unrebutted. Hence, the same shall be deemed to be proved against OP1 & OP2. Regarding OP3 the complaint is silent. Hence, no cause of action arises against OP3.

            As per settle law in case the defect is not cured even after so many services, it is manufacturing defect, in which case the purchaser becomes entitled for the replacement of mobile set with brand new one. As OP2 is service partner of the manufacturer and OP1 selling its products liability of replacement rest upon both of them. Accordingly we hold OP2 & OP1 guilty for providing a defective mobile and deficiency in service and direct both them to either replace the sealed pack new mobile set of the same make model or pay cost of the mobile to him alongwith @ 9% p.a. Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and 1,000/- cost of litigation.

            This order shall be complied by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  

File be consigned to record room.

 

(Announced on 15-05-2015) 

                                     

             (N.A. Zaidi)                                                                             (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)       

              President                                                                                              Member