Delhi

North East

CC/113/2019

Shamshad Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tele Talk Comunication - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 113/19

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Shamshad Ali S/o Lt.  Sh. Haji Abdul Gani, R/o B-134, Street No.9, Chand Bagh, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.                 4.	M/s. Tele-Talk Communication, C-21, Near Main Chowk, Bhajanpura, Delhi110053   M/s Smart Care (Realme Care) 118, Ist Floor, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Opp. Metro Pillar No.35, Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, Delhi110092   M/s Amtrust Mobile Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. C-44, 2nd Floor, Sector 57, Noida-201301.   Also At:- Ist Floor-Tower II, Equinox Business, Park, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla, West Mumbai MH400070   M/s PP Telecell Pvt. Ltd., I-12, Industrial Area, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041   Also At:- Technology Pvt. Ltd. E-9, Block No. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044	Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2         Opposite Party No.3                   Opposite Party No.4

DATE OF INSTITUTION :                          13.12.19
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :                  25.11.22
DATE OF ORDER  :                                    23.02.23

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

      Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant  purchased A1 Gionee mobile handset bearing code No. 85171290 IMEI No. 865891030007021 for a sum of Rs. 14,600/- from Opposite Party No.1 having invoice no. 8308 dated 12.03.18. The Complainant stated that at the time of purchase he paid Rs. 4,601/- and the rest was financed by Home Credit under Customer ID 5340032 whereby the total sum of Rs. 16,496/- including interest was payable out of which Rs. 4,601/- was paid and the balance amount of Rs. 11,895/- along with Rs. 399/- as processing charges was payable in 6 instalments of Rs. 2,102/-. After two months of purchase the said mobile was become out of order and Complainant took the mobile to Opposite Party No.2. The mobile was handed over to Complainant but it had given complaint again and again. In November 2018, Complainant mobile phone fell down and got damaged then Complainant took it to Opposite Party No.3 insurance company. Opposite Party No.3 agent collected the mobile and after repairs returned the same to Complainant on 29.12.18. In February 2019, Complainant made complaint to Opposite Party No.2 about working problem of mobile phone and Opposite Party No.2 after repairs returned the same in March 2019 but the same did not work properly. In September 2019, Opposite Party No.2 prepared job sheet estimation dated 04.10.19 and Opposite Party No.2 estimate expenses of Rs.  3,279/- and noted down the complaint of Complainant in job sheet. The Complainant called Opposite Party No.2 various times to know the status of handset but Opposite Party kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or other. The Complainant submitted that he had visited Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3 requesting them to replace the handset in question or reimburse the amount paid by him but Opposite Parties refused the request of the Complainant. The handset in question is still in the custody of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 neither returned the handset in question nor replaced the same. The Complainant sent notice to Opposite Parties on 13.11.19 and 31.11.19, however two of the notices sent to Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 have received back undelivered. Complainant has prayed for Rs.16,496/-  towards the cost of the mobile phone in question. He has also prayed for Rs. 30,000/- compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.22.

Arguments and Conclusion

3. We have heard the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
4. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No.4 are directed to pay the cost of the mobile phone i.e. 14,600/- severally and jointly to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- jointly and severally on account of mental harassment as well as litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
5. Order announced on 23.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President