Shri Dharam Pal filed a consumer case on 30 Oct 2018 against M/s Dev Telecom in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/73/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov 2018.
Delhi
North East
CC/73/2015
Shri Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s Dev Telecom - Opp.Party(s)
30 Oct 2018
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST
Present complaint has been filed by complainant against OP1 (Dealer/ Shopkeeper), OP2 (Service Centre of OP3) & OP3 (Manufacturer) alleging deficiency in service. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant on 05.07.2014 has purchased a Mobile Phone GIONEE ELIFE S5.5 (colour white) manufactured by OP3 amounting to Rs. 21,200/- vide invoice no. 1060 Book No. 11 from OP1. Just after the purchase complainant began to face many problems in the mobile hand set like charging problem etc. Complainant approached to OP1 for the said problems in mobile phone who referred him to OP2 (service centre of OP3) for find out the problems in the hand set. But after visit many times to OP2, the handset could not be repaired properly and lastly since 18.02.2015, the said mobile phone is lying with the OP2 and never returned to the complainant till date. Complainant further alleged that he has made so many complainants to OP3 also but all in vain. Therefore, complainant was constrained to file the present complaint alleging deficiency of service and prayed that he be either refunded the cost of the mobile or given a new handset amounting to Rs. 21,200/- alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant had attached a copy of retail invoice bearing no. 1060 Book No. 11 dated 05.07.2014 towards the purchase of Gionee ELIFE S 5.5 Mobile phone IMEI No. 862724024137616 for an amount of Rs. 21,200/- purchase from OP1, Service job sheet no. 13505 dated 18.02.2015 issued by OP2 wherein fault in mobile phone under warranty has been mentioned as “No charging, no other fault”.
Notices were issued to the OPs on 13.03.2015. In response of Notices issued to OPs, representative for OP2 & OP3 appeared on 23.10.2015 and received copy of complaint alongwith all annexures. Notice to OP1 was served on 23.09.2013. However, none of OP appeared thereafter, and all the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2015.
Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 29.02.2016 and 12.03.2018 where he reiterated his grievance in the complaint.
We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have also gone through the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contention.
We are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal by the OPs the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs in selling a defective mobile and failing to return the same repaired to the complainant since February 2015. Hence, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency in service and direct all the OPs jointly or severally to refund the cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs. 21,200/- to complainant. We also award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant payable by the OPs jointly and severally. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy 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 30.10.2018)
(N.K. Sharma)
President
(Sonica Mehrotra)
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.