Delhi

North East

CC/73/2017

ROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GARHWAL COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 73/2017

 

In the matter of:

 

	Rohit S/o Shri Amarnath D-63, Jail Road, Harsh Vihar, Delhi 110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.             3.	M/s. Garhwal Communication D-2 & D-3/A, Main Bhajanpura Red Light, Chand Bagh, Delhi   The Amazon Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director for M/s. Rocket Kommerce LLP, Varshini Apartments, Flat No. B-3, N.No. 13, Eswaran Kovil ST, West Mambalam, Chennai-600 033 Tamilnadu,   M/s. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd. 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon Harayana 122015   Also at : Plot No. 21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industries Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110028	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

06.03.2017 22.03.2018 13.04.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone make YU Yuphoria, YU5010 (Black + Silver) X000LGR4DR, IMEI : 911500751867364 manufatured by OP3 and sold by OP2 for a sum of Rs. 5539/- including shipping charges of Rs. 40/- against online invoice for order ID: 402-0278055-5714700 dated 11.10.2016. Since the beginning of purchase of the mobile set, the same was having technical problem in the software. To rectify the same the complainant had made complaint with OP3 but the problem in the above phone was not cured and again and again the problem continued on several dates and on every time the complainant had to make telephonic complaint and every time the officials of OP3 had given some instructions telephonically but the problem in the mobile phone could not be resolved. The complainant sent a number of e-mails to OP3 but OP3 gave the address of OP1 to get the mobile in order. On visiting OP1, complainant was told that the PCB Board burnt nearby, HF Jack component missing, minor and handset RWR after handset seal and screen and to repair the above problems, the complainant will have to bear total expenses of Rs. 4,500/-. Further complainant stated in his complaint that this act of OP1 & OP3 is clear deficiency in service on their part. Complainant prayed that OPs may be directed to return the amount of the said mobile phone including shipping charges totalling Rs. 5,539/- alongwith interest @18% per annum. Further, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and loss of income from the date of purchase of the said mobile phone and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges. A copy of invoice vide no. IN MAA4 151792751 63527 dated 11.11.2016 amounting to Rs. 5539/-including Rs. 40/- shipping charges in support of buying the mobile phone, a copy of job sheet dated 18.11.16 issued by OP1; and copies of complaints by complainant and replies from OP3 by emails have been enclosed in support of the complainant.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs but nobody appeared on their behalf. Thereafter OP2 & OP3 vide order dated 01.06.2017 and OP1 vide order dated 19.07.2017 were proceeded against Ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit as well as written arguments, wherein he reiterated the same points as mentioned in his above complaint.
4. We have heard the arguments submitted by complainant and perused the documents placed on record. It is clear from the documentary evidence that the mobile phone in question was purchased by complainant through OP2 for which payment of Rs. 5539/- including shipping charges of Rs. 40/- was made. The job sheet shows the fault completion report dated 18.11.2016 with clear remarks PCB Board burnt nearby, HF Jack component missing, minor and handset RWR after handset seal and screen. Further, despite writing many emails to OP3 by complainant regarding faulty mobile phone, the grievance of the complainant couldn’t be resolved. In the light of the above mentioned documentary evidence, the complainant has established his ground for complaint and the grievance mentioned therein of the defective mobile. In the absence of OPs, the claim of the complainant has gone un-rebutted and on the basis of documentary evidence placed by the complainant on record of this Forum, we are of the considered view that the complainant has made out a case of deficiency in service against the OP1 & OP3. Since the OP1 is service centre and OP3 is a manufacturer of the mobile in question, their liability is joint and several. We accordingly hold both the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and direct the OP1 & OP3 to refund Rs. 5,499/- towards cost of mobile + Rs. 40/- towards shipping charges alongwith interest @9% on the total amount of Rs. 5539/- payable to complainant from the date of filing of complaint till realization which is imposed on the OP1 & OP3 jointly or severally, payable to the complainant. In addition to the above, we also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant and also Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation payable by the OPs to the complainant within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order. The complaint is allowed accordingly.
5.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6.   File be consigned to record room.
7. Announced on  13.04.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member