Delhi

North East

CC/56/2016

Sh. Devender Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tele Talk & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 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. 56/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Devendra Kumar Bar No.2, Western Wing Tis Hazari Courts. Delhi-110054.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Tele Talk Through proprietor A-21, near Main stand, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53.   M/s Garhwal Communication Through its proprietor Micromax Care D-2 & D-3/A, Bhajanpura Road, Chand Bagh, Delhi.	Opposite Parties

 

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

12.02.2016 18.10.2018 22.10.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts, of the case relevant for deciding the present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a mobile bearing model no. G232 Micromax bearing IMEI No. 911314552859970 on 17.11.2014 manufactured by OP3 from OP1 vide invoice no. 13398 for a sum of Rs. 2650/-. The OP1 had given a warranty / guarantee of one year on the said mobile to the complainant and asked him to approached OP2 and OP3 for any problem therein. In September 2015, the said mobile started giving problems for which the complainant approached OP2, the authorized service centre of OP3 which deposited the subject mobile on 19.09.2014 and issued a jobsheet bearing no. 31597-0915-19261833 with assurance to remove the problem in the said mobile phone within a week and handover the same after repairing within 2 weeks. The OP2 informed the complainant that it shall be sending the mobile to office of OP3 for removal of defects therein. However after the expiry of 15 days, when the complainant demanded his mobile phone from OP2, he was asked to approach the customer care to narrate his grievances which he did but no satisfactory reply came forth and the complainant was not handed back his mobile handset which the OPs were legally and morally liable to do but intentionally and knowingly harassed the complainant. The complainant has stated that he is a practicing advocate and mobile was essential for contacting his clients which due to non operational mobile and unsatisfactory service on the part of OPs caused him loss of income. The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 18.12.2015 to the OPs calling upon to handover his mobile phone alongwith damages but the OPs failed to act upon it. Lastly the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OPs for deficiency of service praying for issuance of directions to the OPs to rectify the defect of the mobile phone and handover the same to the complainant alongwith compensation and damages.

Complainant has attached original invoice dated 17.11.2014 forRs. 2650/- towards purchase of mobile in question, original job sheet dated 19.09.2015, copy of legal notice dated 18.12.2015 with postal receipt.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 25.02.2016. However, none appeared despite service on 10.03.2016, 08.03.2016, 07.03.2016 respectively. Counsel for OP3 had appeared on 28.03.2016 and was handed over copy of complaint alongwith annexures. However, no reply was filed by OP3. Op1 & OP2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.05.2016 and defence of Op3 was struck off vide order dated 13.07.2016.
3. The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 12.08.2016 and 03.11.2016 respectively reiterating his grievance of complaint and exhibiting documents filed alongwith complaint in support of his contention / grievance against the OP. Written arguments were filed by OP3 on 10.08.2018 taking the argument that the complainant had failed to produced terms of warranty on the basis of which he has right to claim after sale service from OP3.  OP3 further submitted that the complainant had deposited the handset with OP2 on 19.09.2015 after having used it for 10 months and even after the hand set was repaired by OP2 of which the intimation was given to complainant, the complainant never reverted back to collect the hand set and therefore, submitted there was no deficiency in service of part of OP3 as it never denied any service to complainant in terms of warranty and prayed for dismissal of complaint since, no specific manufacturing defect in the subject mobile was alleged by the complainant nor any authenticated report of expert from approved lab was filed by him.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record. In the absence of the rebuttal by way of documentary evidence by the OPs on record due to OPs having been proceeded ex parte due to their non appearance, and on the basis of the documentary evidence placed on record by complainant we find merit in the present complaint and thereby allow the same against the OPs in favour of complainant and direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 2650/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages and suffering.
5. Let be order complied within 30 days failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the awarded sum of Rs. 4650/- to the complainant from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 22.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member