DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 670/2013
Date of Institution 01/08/2013
Order Reserved on 14/09/2016
Date of Order - 15/09/2016
In matter of
Mr.Naveen Kumar, adult
S/o- Sh. Subhash Chand
R/o-C4/36, Acharya Niketan,
Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi 110093.…………...………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s Mobile Gallary
Shop- P-13A, Pandav Nagar,
Delhi
2-The Service City
Autho service centre of Black Berry
Shop no.- 201, IInd Floor, Sagar Plaza
B/h PSK Mall, laxmi Nagar, Delhi
3-Black Berry Expert Centre,
739/1, Ground Floor, Parshwa Nath Building
Sec 14, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-1220001………………Opponent
Complainant-In-person
Opponent-Ex Parte
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant purchased a Black Berry mobile 9220 vide IMEI no. 353566050940272 for a sum of Rs 10,350/- on 25/11/2012 from OP1. After about 2 months in use, the said mobile developed some problems in display, so he took his mobile to OP2 for repair on 09/01/2013. He received his mobile back on 19/01/2013 with same problem of display.
As per complainant, OP2 asked Rs 4500/- as repair charges which were not paid by complainant. For return of his mobile, OP2 took Rs 220/ as per their terms and condition.
Thereafter complainant took his mobile to M/s Jain Electronics at Nanak pura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi and got repaired after paying a sum of Rs 2500/-. Due to harassment and defective services of OP2, he filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs 2500/- charges paid by him and Rs 220/- taken by OP2 for inspection of his phone for doing repair. He also claimed a sum of Rs 50,000/- as harassment and Rs 21,000/- as litigation charges.
Notices were served on OPs. None put up their appearance nor submitted written statement and evidence. Even after giving ample opportunities, OPs did not appeared, so, OPs were proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his evidence on affidavit which were on record. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We have gone through all the facts and evidence on record, it was evident that OP2 did not perform its services and demanded money for getting repaired the said mobile, but the said mobile was under warranty for one year. But as the complainant got his mobile repaired from other service centre which was not an authorized centre by OP3, hence the same phone warranty was void.
In this complaint, we came to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service by OP2 by demanding a sum of Rs 4500/- from complainant, though the amount was not paid by complainant though there was no evidence put by complainant to sustain his allegation of defective services by OP2 as case was proceeded Ex Parte. As far as taking a sum of Rs 220/- by OP2, by perusal of cash invoice. It was mentioned that OP will charge this amount for doing inspection of product of OP3.
We allow this complaint and pass the following order as –
OP2 shall pay a sum of Rs 2490/-paid by complainant to Jain Electronics for getting changed his display with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint within 30 days after receiving this order. We also award compensation with litigation charges a sum of Rs 2000/-in the time essence. Failing to comply this order by OP2 in time, the entire award shall carry the same interest till realization.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs -Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
