Delhi

North East

CC/197/2015

Abid Saifi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Wizart Digitek Computer - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: N-E

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.197/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Abid Saifi S/o Mushtaq Saifi R/o House No. 446, Old Mustafabad, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
	Wizard Digitech Computers Pvt Ltd.            C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.   Laxmi Nagar Delhi Service City Office No. 201, 2nd Floor, Sagar Plaza, Distt Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -92.   M P S Telecom Pvt. Ltd D-55, 1st & 2nd Floor, Okhala Industrial Area, Phase-1,                   New Delhi-20.		Opposite Parties

 

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	04.06.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	12.05.2016

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

 

Order

1.           The facts, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this complaint are that the complainant purchased HTC 820 S Mobile on 4.4.2015 vide IMEI No. 356059062094806 SN. No. IC53AYF80820 and TN No. 15INA190005815 for Rs 21300/-. After 3-4 days of its purchase the power button of the mobile was not working properly and on 5.5.2015 the display of the phone was switching on and off automatically and after sometime it switched off permanently. Complainant took the mobile to service centre who provided him the job sheet and asked to collect the mobile after 15-20 days. It is further stated that after 8 days of the deposit of mobile with service centre the complainant received a call from service centre that the mobile was liquid damaged and charges to the tune of Rs. 10714/- are to be paid to which the complainant got tensed as the power button of the mobile was not working at time the mobile was deposited with service centre, and the complainant made a complaint in writing on 23.5.2015 but no response had been received. The complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 21,300/-, cost of mobile, Rs. 30,000/-, for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.           Notice was issued to the OPs. All the OPs have been served with notice but they did not enter appearance hence were proceeded with ex-parte on 8.10.2015.
3.           Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit stating that the facts mentioned in the complaint are true and correct. The complainant has filed copy of bill of the mobile phone in question dated 4.4.2015 and copy of the job sheet dated 5.5.2015 which are marked as Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2. On perusal of the job sheet it is established that the mobile in question is within the warranty period and it is also mentioned that defects power button, the power key  are not working properly with normal scratches on the body. As OPs have chosen not to enter appearance and rebut the allegation contained in the complaint we have no other option but to accept the contention raised by the complainant. In the complaint the complainant has specifically stated that the power button of the mobile was not working properly after 4-5 days of the purchase and after one month it stopped working and the mobile is still with service centre.
4.           We therefore, hold all the OPs guilty of deficiency in service jointly and severally and direct that OPs shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 21,300/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of mobile phone with service centre and pay Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.   
5.           This order shall be complied within 30 days on the receipt of this order.
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  12.05.2016    

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)            Member

(Manju Bala Sharma)   Member