Delhi

East Delhi

CC/147/2017

VIKAS JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 147/17

 

Shri Vikas Jain

R/o 9/2202, Gali No. 10

Kailash Nagar, Delhi – 110 031                                   ….Complainant

Vs.    

The Mobile Care

B-36, Guru Nanak Pura

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                          …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 12.04.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 04.12.2018

Judgement Passed on: 10.12.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Vikas Jain against the Mobile Care (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Vikas Jain purchased a mobile phone of YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. on 06.01.2017 from Snapdeal.  Since the mobile phone was not working, he went to service centre, the Mobile Care in Laxmi Nagar on16.02.2017 and deposited the same for repair.  He collected the same on 22.02.2017.

          It has been stated that they have changed his new mobile with old mobile and low configuration.  He submitted the same and they offered old mobile instead of his new mobile phone.  Thus, he has prayed for refund of the cost of mobile of Rs. 5,299/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost. 

3.  
4.  

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the testimony of the complainant which has gone unrebutted and the job sheet which has been placed on record, it is evident that complainant deposited his mobile with the Mobile Care (OP), after a period of 1month and 10 days only, reporting “Power does not switch off”.  After getting the same repaired, complainant have stated that they have returned his handset, but with changed one which he deposited the same again with Mobile Care (OP) and have not received.

          The fact that handset has been lying with Mobile Care, which is stated to be not of the complainant which was a new one, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of Mobile Care (OP).

          By changing his new mobile handset with old one which he has not taken it back, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

          In view of the above, we order that M/s. Mobile Care (OP) shall return the original handset which was deposited by the complainant after getting it repaired.  If the said handset was not available with OP, he be given the handset of the equivalent value of Rs. 5,299/-. 

          In the eventuality of failure on the part of OP to comply with these two options, the complainant be refunded an amount of Rs. 5,299/-, the value of the handset.  He is further awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of compensation which includes the cost of litigation.

          The order be complied within a period of 60 days. If not complied, the awarded amount will carry 6% interest from the date of order.

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

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President