Delhi

East Delhi

CC/636/2012

Mudit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MMI Online - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.636/2012:

In the Matter of:

Mr. Mudit Kumar

S/o. Sh. Raj Kumar,

R/o. X - 286, Gali No.3,

Brahampuri, Delhi – 110 053

Complainant

Vs

1. MMI  Online  Ltd.

Okhla Industrial Estate,

84, 2^nd Floor, Phase-3,

New Delhi - 110 020

 

2. Alpha Radios           

1900, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi - 110 006.

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                     Date of Admission-17/08/2012

                                                                                    Date of Order         -27/07/2015

 

ORDER

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT:

                   This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a Blackberry Curve 83110 mobile handset from Respondent No.I for Rs.6,198/- vide Retail Invoice No.RO 112740 which was delivered to him on 27/02/2012 alongwith the Invoice.  On 24/05/2012 the voice of the said handset was noted to be not proper and the starting process of the phone was very slow. A complaint was made on 24/05/2012 vide Complaint No.6091 and he was asked to go to Alpha Radios for rectification of the problems in the handset. The phone was left with Respondent No.2 on 08/06/2012 vide Job-Sheet No.1405 and since then the handset has not been returned even after the expiry of two months. The Respondent No.1 assured the complainant to send a new brand phone in lieu of the defective handset but none of the obligation was performed. The respondents have been deficient in providing the service. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the handset, Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

                   Respondent No.2 filed their reply wherein it is alleged that the handset which was deposited with it for repairs was in extreme damaged condition, with scratches all over it and it has been lying ready/repaired with the answering respondent since quite long. The complainant has not approached the respondent to collect the same and has filed this frivolous complaint which deserves to be dismissed.

                   Parties have filed their affidavit in support of their respective pleas.

                   Heard the Ld. Counsel and perused the record.

                   This fact is admitted that the handset in question was submitted for repairs to the Respondent No.2 on 08/06/2012 with Job-Sheet No. 1405. The defect which has been noted down in the Job-Sheet that the mobile handset was dead and having the charging problem and according to Respondent No.2 the handset was repaired and the complainant has not turned up for collecting the same. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the respondent never informed the complainant before filing of this complaint that the handset has been repaired and is ready for delivery when the Contact No.9582792737 was noted on the Job-Sheet. There is no evidence that Respondent No.2 has ever written to the complainant that the handset which was submitted for repairs has been repaired or it may be collected by him.  The complainant argued that Respondent No.1 has promised to provide the replacement and they have not provided the same. We have failed to find out any such assurance from the side of Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is not at all in picture in the entire transaction of getting the phone repaired from Respondent No.2. It is the internal arrangement between the respondents with regard to providing the services since Respondent No.2 is their service provider.  It has also been argued that Respondent No.2 is not liable to refund the cost of handset or to provide the replacement. The complainant argued that since Respondent No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of Respondent No.1 and they acted on behalf of the Respondent No.1 their liability is joint with Respondent No.1. We find substance in the submission of the Ld. Cl. for the complainant that the phone is lying with the respondent for almost 3 years. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, holding the respondents deficient in providing the service, we allow this complaint. We direct the respondents to provide the cost of the handset that is Rs.5,713/- to the complainant within the period of 45 days from the date of the order. We, further, award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to the complainant as he has been deprived of the use of the handset for such long period and Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation. If the entire said amount is not paid within 45 days from the date of the order, the complainant shall be entitled for 9% p.a. interest over the amount allowed above, till it is finally paid.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                             POONAM MALHOTRA                     N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                           (MEMBER)                              (PRESIDENT)