Delhi

North East

CC/121/2015

Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

03 Jan 2019

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. 121/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Raju S/o Prem Chand R/o F-1/95, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093. M. No.-9810216951		Complainant
		Versus
		Sai Electronics, Shop No-28, Pocket B&E DDA Market, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 H.T.C sevice Care Centre, Office No-201, IInd floor, sagar plaza, Distt Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092. H.T.C Corporation Ltd. India Import office/ imported by: Brightpoint India Private Limited, B-92, 9th floor, Himalaya House, 23 K.G. Marg, New Delhi-11001		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :		13.04.2015 03.01.2019 03.01.2019

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the complainant had purchased an HTC desire 501 16 GB mobile bearing IMEI no. 3580350501126451 manufactured/ imported by OP3 from OP1 authorized dealer on 26.03.2014 for sum of   Rs 16,000/- vide invoice no. 50323/ book no 252. However, within one year of purchase, the above said handset started giving problems in ear speaker and charging jack with issues of voice clarity and therefore the complainant visited OP2, authorized service OP3 on 18.02 2015 when the charging jack stopped working completely and deposited the said mobile with OP2 on 20.02.2015 vide a job sheet no. DL 0022-0010584/ ticket number 15INA080012563 with the said mobile being under warranty for repairs. The staff of OP2 assured the complainant that his mobile would be repaired within a week’s time. However, when the complainant visited OP2 after a week, he was asked to come after next 10 days since the necessary parts of the subject mobile had not been received. When the complainant again visited OP2 after 10 days, he was further asked to come after another 5 days to which the complainant expressed his displeasure and questioned the staff of OP2 as to why they were not repairing his mobile to which no satisfactory answer / explanation was given to him nor was his mobile ever returned to him repaired or otherwise. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complainant before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs either to replace his defective mobile with a brand new one or to refund the cost thereof and grant   Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental, financial and physical harassment and Rs. 12,000/- towards litigation charges. The complainant has attached the copy of invoice dated 26.03.2014 of purchase of mobile phone in question from OP1 and copy of job sheet dated 20.02.2015 for deposit of the same with OP2 along with complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs on 13.04.2015. OP1 and 3 were served on 23.09.2015 and OP2 was served on 30.10.2015. However, none appeared on behalf any of the OPs and therefore  OP1 and OP2 were proceeded against ex- parte vide  order dated 18.11.2015 and 22.12.2015 respectively. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 26.04.2016 and 25.07.2018 respectively. At the time of hearing oral arguments, on perusal of order sheets, it was observed that no order was passed against OP3 with respect to its continued non- appearance despite service on 23.09.2015 and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant reiterated his grievance in the complaint, evidence as well as written arguments and prayed for relief sought against the OPs.
3. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record which in absence of rebuttal by the OPs is sufficient to prove deficiency of service on part of the OPs in having sold a defective handset which did not last even its warranty period and failure on the part of OP2, authorized service centre of OP3 to repair the same within the stipulated promised period and hand it over to the complainant without any cogent reason for the same. We, therefore, allow the present complaint against the OPs and direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile  i.e. Rs. 16,000/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental, physical and financial harassment and Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation charges. Let the order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
4.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
5.   File be consigned to record room.
6.   Announced on  03.01.2019

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member