Delhi

North East

CC/33/2015

Lalit Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sai Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

11 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. 33/2015

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Deshraj Singh R/o 4/2381 Gali No. 10, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	M/s. Sai Electronics Shop No. 28, Pocket B&E, DDA Market, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095   M/s. Mobile Care WZ 109, Street No. 1, Palam, New Delhi 110045	Opposite Parties

 

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

06.02.2015 09.04.2018 11.04.2018

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant stating that on 14.06.2013 he had purchased a mobile phone Nokia Lumia 920 white, vide invoice No. 38503 for an amount of Rs. 31,700/- from OP1. The complainant has stated that OP2 approached him for providing the warranty to the said mobile for two years which under the price range of subject mobile was the tune of Rs. 3500/-  and the same was opted for by the complainant by paying the said amount to OP2. A copy of the card issued by OP2 in this regard has been attached which shows the extended warranty by Mobile care for a period of two years on their mobile handset from the date of purchase. It has been reported by the complainant that after one year of purchase of mobile phone, in August 2014, some display problem was developed in the above mobile set and after complaint to the OP2, the mobile set was collected from the complainant on 11.08.2014 and after several calls and reminders, it was returned to him on 05.09.2014. It has been stated by the complainant that the above mobile set was not repaired and was returned by the OP2 to him in the same condition. Therefore the complainant returned the same to the delivery boy of OP2 and repeatedly contacted the OP1 and OP2 but to no avail. Since, September 2015, the subject mobile was lying with OP2. Therefore, being aggrieved by the above said behavior of the OPs, the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel for delivery of repaired mobile set but till date neither the said notice had been replied nor complied with by the OPs. The complainant has submitted that he is facing huge inconvenience as he had purchased the above said mobile for specific features which cannot be met by ordinary phones and the behavior of the OPs is negligent and there is deficiency of service on their part which has caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant and as such they are liable to pay compensation and prayed for directions by this Forum to OP1 and OP2 to deliver the repaired mobile set to the complainant and allow a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the OPs for causing mental harassment and dragging the complainant in legal battle.   Complainant has annexed a copy of retail invoice no. 38503 dated 14.06.2013, copy of Mobile care card, copy of jobsheet no. 9921 dated 11.08.2014 alongwith terms and conditions, jobcard dated 05.09.2014.
2. Notice was issued to both the OPs on 11.09.2015 for appearance on 18.03.2015 which was duly served on 27.08.2015 to OP1 and on 14.02.2015 to OP2. Despite given several opportunities to OP1 & OP2 but they failed to appeared and as such was proceeded against ex parte on 20.11.2015 & 25.03.2015 respectively.
3. The complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments wherein he reiterated points made in his complaint.
4. The complainant placed on record a copy of the service plan from Mobile Care wherein it has been shown that Rs. 3500/- charged for extended service warranty in case the hand set value is between 30,001 to 40,000/- which was Rs. 31,700/- in this case.
5. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by complainant and also gone through the documentary evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions. We feel that the complainant has submitted a copy of Mobile Care Extended Warranty card as a proof but doesn’t contain his name or any details about the product. There is no receipt of the amount of Rs. 3500/- paid by him to OP2. However, the copy of the job sheet shows his name and the details of the product but it does not show that the same is under extended warranty.  Similar is the case with the other job card submitted by him which has been issued by another service centre whose name is not legible and has been issued on 5.9.2014. During the course of oral arguments we have seen the original documents and job card and as such the complainant has established that his mobile set  is lying with OP2.
6.  We are of the considered opinion that OPs deficient in service quo complainant and that since the mobile phone is lying with OP2 unrepaired, OP2 is directed to repair and return the same to the complainant to the full satisfaction of complainant within 30 days of receipt of the said order. In case of failure of OP2 to comply with the said order within stipulated period, both OPs shall be jointly or severally liable to pay Rs. 31,700/- to the complainant towards cost of mobile phone alongwith Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and litigation.
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  11.04.2018

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member