CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.474/2008
SHRI MOHIT KUMAR
S/O SH. YASHPAL SAINI
R/O H.NO.2979/XI, KUCHA NEELKANTH
DARYAGANJ,
NEW DELHI-110002
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
D-13/4, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II,
NEW DELHI-110020
- THE CUSTOM SHOP
2527/192, TOTARAM BAZAR,
TRINAGAR, DELHI-110035
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/OWNER
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:30.09.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Sony Ericsson mobile handset manufactured by OP-1, from OP-2 for a sum of Rs.17,800/- on 26.12.07.
It is stated that the said handset was defective from very beginning. The handset was taken to OP-2. Complainant was asked to approach company’s office. Accordingly, complainant approached the company’s office and handed over the said handset there on 19.01.08 and he was asked to come after few days. After few days complainant received back the said handset after repair but still it was defective. Complainant again approached OP-1 regarding the defect of the handset on 13.2.08 and again the handset was repaired but he same was defective and the handset is in fact totally useless. A legal notice was sent to OP to replace the handset but the same was not done. It is stated that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.17,800/- i.e. price of the said mobile handset alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
OP-2 in reply took the plea that complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and OP-2 has nothing to do as it merely sold the handset to complainant. Further it is denied that the old handset was sold to complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
OP-1 also in its reply denied that the old handset was sold. It is stated that in fact the complainant has not come up with clean hands and concocted a false story. It is stated that complainant approached the OP regarding defect in the handset and a brand new handset was handed over to him which is evident from the jobcard and this fact has been concealed by the complainant. Regarding visiting of the complainant again on 13.02.08 for the repair of the handset, it is stated that the handset was damaged physically and it is so mentioned in the jobcard. The problem pointed out was as “dead, keypad light colour show”. The Service Engineer remarked that the handset was damaged physically hence the handset was not repaired. Though the complainant wanted a new handset but the same cannot be given because the handset was physically damaged. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the entire record carefully.
It is significant to note that complainant has concealed the fact that there were many problems in the handset ad the same was replaced with a new handset and the handset was collected by the complainant on 22.01.08 and OP has specifically mentioned this fact in the reply and this fact is not controverted by the complainant in the rejoinder.
It is further significant to note that jobcard dated 13.02.08 clearly shows that the handset was damaged physically. When handset has been damaged physically the same obviously cannot be repaired or replaced and when the handset was collected by the complainant, he was satisfied with it as is evident form the jobcard. If the handset has been damaged physically there is no question of repairing the same.
Assuming that the handset was repaired on 13.02.08 even then no case is made out by the complainant as he has not placed any document on record to show that after 13.02.08 the handset was again damaged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
