Delhi

StateCommission

A/130/2017

MAHIMA TALWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SARGAM ELECTRONICS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SELF

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                          Date of Argument:          12.04.17

     Date of Decision:       19.04.17

 

First Appeal No. 130/2017

In the matter of:

Ms. Mahima Talwar

R/o 117, Priya Enclave

Delhi-1100920         .                                                                       ………Appellant

 

                                                            Versus

1.M/s Sargam Electricals

   C-52, Preet Vihar,

   Delhi-1100920.

 

2.The Cell Care

   D-30, 2^nd Floor,

   Old Patprganj Road

   Delhi-110092.

 

3. Panasonic Customer Services

    Through Jania Mobile Marketing

    D-172, Okhla Industrial Area

    New Delhi-110020.                                                   ….Respondents

   

 

         

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

         Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

 

SHRI O.P.GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.17 passed by district forum dismissing the complaint. The appellant purchased a Panasonic mobile T-21 from Respondent No. 1 on15.04.2014 for Rs. 9400/-.  The mobile developed some problem and stopped working.  The appellant visited authorized service centre of OP 2 on 31.12.14.  OP 2 noted problem as “Liquid Failure” and returned the handset without repair.  OP 2 quoted sum of Rs. 5180/- for repair.  So  appellant took her mobile to local mobile repair shop who rectified the problem instantly.  The appellant paid Rs. 400/-. Hence appellant filed complaint for refund f cost of mobile, Rs. 400/- paid by her for repair and Rs. 2000/- for compensation, Rs. 2000/- for litigation charges.

2.      The District Forum found that there was no allegation against OP 1, so name of OP 1 was deleted from array of parties.  OP 2 and OP 3 filed joint WS stating that mobile had liquid damage and was not covered under the standard warranty terms and conditions.  The mobile has no manufacturing defect as it was used for over eight months without any problem.

3.      The complainant filed rejoinder but did not file any evidence. OP also did not file any evidence.  Ops were proceeded exparte.  The district forum found that none of the parties submitted any evidence on affidavit and it could not be opined that OP 2 was deficient in service or entered into unfair trade practice by asking to pay for liquid damage which was excluded from warranty.

4.      In the appeal the appellant raised hue and cry that even after deleting the name of OP 1 from array of parties, its name still finds place in the impugned order. We do not feel any prejudice has been caused to the appellant by doing so.

5.      When there was no evidence from the side of appellant there was no option with the district forum but to dismiss the complaint.  There is nothing wrong in dismissing the complaint.

6.      We may add that this is a petty complaint pertaining to the purchase of mobile worth Rs. 9400/- on repair of which Rs. 400/- were spent.  The complainant is fighting since March 2015.  The dispute is not worth being fought any more.

          The appeal fails and is dismissed in limini.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          Ne copy of the order be sent to district forum.

 

                (ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                               (O.P.GUPTA)

            MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER(JUDICIAL)