ORDER
PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
On 17.7.2011, the complainant had purchased a Dell Aero mobile phone manufactured by OP3 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 11,500/-. It is alleged by the complainant that in November, 2011 the touch screen of the handset had stopped working. The complainant had taken the handset to OP2. He was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- on the ground that the screen had been damaged. The complainant had deposited the aforesaid amount and was asked to collect the handset after 20 days. The complainant however did not receive the handset even after 20 days and sent reminders on 16.2.2012 and 18.2.2012. In the meanwhile , the complainant had purchased another mobile handset as it was urgently required by him. He had served a legal notice upon the Ops for refund of the amount but failed to get any favourable response . Hence, the complaint.
The Ops have contested the complaint. It has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that the complaint was false and frivolous . It has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record a copy of the invoice dated 17.7.2011 showing the purchase of the handset from OP1 for a sum of Rs. 11,500/- . He has also placed on record a copy of the SDAR report issued by OP2. It shows deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by the complainant as cost of the replacement of the screen and also shows the deposit of the handset by the complainant. The complainant has then placed on record letter dated 16.2.2012 ,18.2.2012 and 9.3.2012 which he had written to the Ops. A copy of the legal notice dated 14.4.2012 has also been placed on record. The evidence led on record as well as the documentary evidence establishes that the handset which was purchased in July 2011 was deposited with OP2 with the complaint of screen damage. The complainant has also deposited a sum of Rs 2,500/- as cost of the replacement of the screen. The correspondence exchanged between the parties shows that even after two / three months the handset was not returned to the complainant. A legal notice served upon the OP also did not elicit any favourable response. It is ,therefore, clear that the Ops have been deficient in rendering service to the complainant. It had taken unduly long time for the repair of the set which was only five months old. The Ops had not cared to respond to the letters written by the complainant nor have handed over the set repaired or otherwise. We, therefore, hold the Ops deficient in rendering services and direct OP2 and OP3 jointly and severally as under:-
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 14,000/- (11,500+2,500) along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 1.7.2012 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP2 & OP3 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP2 & OP3 fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
