Delhi

North East

CC/348/2015

Shri Amit Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Garhwal Communication - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2017

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. 348/15

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Amit Bhardwaj S/o Shri Mahender Singh R/o K-21/55A, Street No. 1 West Ghonda, Delhi-110053.		Complainant
		Versus
	1           2             3	The Concern (P.R.O) M/s Garhawal Communication Office: D-2 & D-3/A Main Bhajanpura Red Light Chand Bagh Delhi-110094.   M/s Goel Telecom H.No. 1824, Shanti Nagar Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035 Also at: G-14, Aggarwal Plaza M2K, Rohini,            Delhi-110085.   The Concern Officer Micromax House 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122015.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		18.09.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		19.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		22.09.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

 

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Amit Bhardwaj against OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, thereby alleging deficiency in service.

Facts of the present complaint are that on 26.11.2014, the complainant purchased Micromax Smart Mobile Phone bearing IMEI No. 911338901282634 against invoice No. R- 3650 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from OP2, the dealer. After 3 months of purchase, the said handset was not working properly as there was no voice, network problem and over-heating of battery, for which the complainant approached OP2, where he was advised to give his handset to authorized service centre i.e. OP1. It is stated that on 4.4.2015 the complainant visited OP1 where jobsheet No. 31597-0415-15900149 was issued and the repaired handset was received by the complainant after one month. The complainant was assured that the defects had been removed but only after 5 days of use, the complainant started facing the same problems reported earlier. On 9.5.2015, another jobsheet bearing No. 31597-0515-16532355 was issued by OP1. Despite repairs the handset was not working properly for which again the handset was deposited with OP1 for repairs on 13.06.2015 vide jobsheet No. 31597-0615-17237648. It is stated that the handset is lying with OP1 and has not been returned as it could not be repaired. Legal notice dated 8.7.2015 was sent to OPs, demanding replacement of the handset or repairs, which was neither replied nor complied. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the handset, directions to OPs to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.       

Copy of Adhar card, Legal Notice dated 8.7.2015, copy of invoice dated 26.11.2014, jobsheet issued by OP1 dated 4.4.2015, 9.5.2015 and 13.6.2015 alongwith postal receipts have been annexed with the complaint.

2. Notice of present complaint was served upon OPs but no reply was file on their behalf and subsequently they stopped appearing. On 21.12.2015, they were proceeded Ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence where he has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has got exhibited Legal notice dated 8.7.2015 as Exhibit CW1/A, original copy of retail invoice as Exhibit CW1/B, jobsheet dated 4.4.2015 as Exhibit CW1/C, jobsheet dated 9.5.2015 as Exhibit CW1/D, jobsheet dated 13.06.2015 as Exhibit CW1/E, original postal receipt as Exhibit CW1/F.
4. We have heard the arguments on behalf of counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The handset was within warranty period as per Ex-CW1/C, Ex-CW1/D and CW1/E. Problem reported in all the jobsheets is “power does not switch on, cellular access(GSM no service), over-heating and charging”. When the complainant has to approach OP1 for the same problem time and again and which could not be rectified despite several visits this definitely proves that there were some defects in the handset which could not be removed. Hence, we direct OP2 and OP3 to refund Rs. 13,500/- being the cost of handset. As OP2 and OP3 have failed to repair the handset which was under warranty, it definitely amounts to mental harassment so Rs. 5,500/- as compensation is also awarded, which shall be inclusive of litigation cost.

In case OPs failed to complied with the order then the awarded amount of Rs. 19,000/- (13,500+5,500) shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order till realization.

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.

(Announced on  22.09.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member