Delhi

North East

CC/305/2015

Rajkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Y.K. Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

13 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.305/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh X-211, Gali No.13, Bhrampuri, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	M/s Y.K. Telecom C-81/2, Main Bhajanpura Bus Stop, Wazirabad, Bhajanpura Delhi -110053.   M/s New Mobile Care India Pvt. Ltd. WZ-109, Street No.1, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, Delhi-110045
		Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	24.08.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	13.05.2016

 

 

 

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 on 08.04.2014 the complainant purchased mobile phone of FLY company for a sum of Rs.4,200/- vide bill No.265 from OP1 and also got insurance from OP2 on persuasion of OP1 vide Plan ID No.NMC 49722 dated 08.04.2014 and paid Rs.420/- to OP2.  It is stated that soon after the purchase of the mobile in question, various problems occurred such as speaker not working, weak battery, invisible and unclear screen etc. and the complainant approached both the OPs and requested them to either repair or replace the mobile but all in vain.  When the OPs failed to redress the grievance the complainant sent a legal notice to OPs on 19.03.2015 which was duly received by them but the OPs failed to do the needful or reply the legal notice.  The complainant prayed that OPs be directed to replace the mobile in question with new mobile, pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience.
2.           Notice was sent to both the OPs.  OP1 did not enter appearance though served with notice, hence was proceeded with ex parte.  OP2 could not be served as the address given by the complainant was found locked by the postal authorities, hence deleted from the array of parties on request of complainant vide order 20.11.2015. 
3.           Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and filed documents viz. Bill No.265 dated 08.04.2014 Ex.CW1/1, Cashless Protection Plan Ex. CW1/2, legal notice sent to OP3 Ex.CW1/3 and postal receipt Ex.CW1/4.
4.           Heard the complainant in person and gone through the record.  As OP1 has been served but chose not to enter appearance and rebut the allegation contained in the complaint we have no other option but to accept the case of the complainant.  Though complainant has not given specific date when the problem in the mobile crept for the first time yet he has stated in his complaint that soon after the purchase of the mobile phone in question it started creating problem and this fact was brought to the notice of the OPs but all in vain.  As OP1 has not rebutted this contention of complainant and legal notice to this effect was also sent but of no avail.  We hold the OP1 guilty of deficiency in service and direct to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with new mobile, pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- 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  13.05.2016    

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)           Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member