Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/572

Ashutosh Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mangla Telecom Centre - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                             Date of institution:   29.08.2014

Complaint Case. No.572/14                                                      Date of order: 22.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Ashutoshkumar Singh S/o ShriSangram Singh R/O House no.26Gali no.2,Vipin Garden extension, Near Dwarka Mod, Uttam Nagar-59                                                    Complainant

VERSUS

M/S Mangla Telecom Centre, E-27Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59                                                                                                                                                             Opposite party-1

M/S Mobile Care Services Pvt. Ltd., WZ-109 Sadh Nagar,Palam, New Delhi-110045

Opposite Party-2

                                                                                                                                   

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

                        This Consumer complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is filed by complainnartAshutosh Kumar Singh with averments that the complainant on 01.12.2012 purchased a mobile “ Nokia Lumia 710” with serial no.352843058089183 from Mangla Telecom Centre the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. On the same day he purchased AMC from My Mobile Care Services Pvt. Ltd. the opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs.1,000/- for two years vide card no. MC-IND-D-001177.That the complainant on 13.06.2014 felt charge storageproblem in the mobile handset.On the same day he made complaint no.1406201413 to the opposite party no.2. On 16.06.2014 an employee of the opposite party no.2 collected the mobile handset from house of the complainant with the promise to return the mobile handset within a week. But even after expiry of more than one month the opposite party no.2 failed to repair and return the mobile handset. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- cost of the mobile handset, Rs.10,000/- as damages for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.55,00/- as cost of litigation.

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But despite service  none put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte.

                        When the complainantAshutosh Kumar Singh was asked to lead ex-parteevidence , he tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his complaint also relied upon invoice no. dated 01.12.2012, warranty/AMC card no.MC-IND-D-001177, jobs sheet no.2214 and legal notice dated 04.08.2014.

                        We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

                        The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted version and evidence of the complainant. The complainant from his affidavit, invoice, AMC card no.MC-IND-D-001177, job sheet no.2214 and legal notice dated 04.08.2014 has been able to prove that on 01.12.2012 he purchased “Nokia Lumia 710” with serial no.352843058089183 mobile handset from the opposite party no.1 for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. On the same day he purchased AMC from opposite party no.2 on payment of Rs.1,000/- for two years. The mobile handset on 13.06.2014, within warranty,was delivered to opposite party no.2 due to charge storage problem. But the opposite party no.2 neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset. Therefore, the complainant suffered loss of the mobile handset. He is also deprived to use the mobile handset. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

                        In view of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds andis hereby allowed. The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- cost of the mobile handset and Rs.25,00/- as compensation on  account of mental and physical agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on :

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT