Ram Niwas filed a consumer case on 27 Jul 2016 against M/S. Bindra Communication Pvt.Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/558/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Sep 2016.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110001
Case No.C.C./558/2013 Dated:
In the matter of:
SHRI RAM NIWAS
S/o Sh. Dal Chand,
R/o H.No. 156,
Village mavai,
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. BINDRA COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.
Shop No.3, Kali Bari Marg,
Near Gole Dak-khan
New Delhi-110001
2. THE CARE MANAGER,
Sumsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Corporate Office,
At A-25, Mohanpur Coop.,
Industrial Area, Badarpur,
Delhi-44.
.... OPPOSITE PARTIES
MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA
ORDER
Complainant purchased Samsung Metro 3520 phone from OP No.1 on 14/6/12.
It is alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid mobile phone worked properly for some time and in the month of December 2012 the aforesaid mobile was shown to OP No. 2 as there was some technical problem in it. It is alleged by the complainant that OP No. 2 after repairing handed over the same to him.
It is further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid mobile again started giving problem and as such he handed over the same to the OP 2 for repairing in the month of February 2013, who after some repair work handed over the mobile to him, but this time the fault has not been removed by the Service Engineer of OP 2 and as such he deposited the same with OP 2 on 21.3.13, 10/5/13 and lastly on 24/5/13 and since then the alleged mobile is with OP 2.
It is alleged by the complainant that he visited several times to the shop of OP 2, but OP 2 neither repaired nor changed the handset in question. Hence this complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs through Registered Post AD for 17/12/13. Mr. Mohit A.R. for OP 1 appeared and collected the copy of complaint. On 24/2/13 OP 1 filed its written statement, since none appeared on behalf of OP 2 it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte on 3/4/14. Despite opportunity OP 2 failed to placed on record its evidence, and as such its defence was closed on 17/9/14.
This complaint case is already reserve for orders on 3/6/15. But before the order could be passed the then Ld. President and One Ld. Member of this District Forum retired, leading to fixing of the matter for re-arguments.
We have heard ex-parte arguments and have persued the record.
Complainant has placed on record the original bill dated 14/6/12 vide which he purchased the mobile phone form OP 1, copies of job sheet dated 21/3/13 and 24/5/13 in support of his case.
From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.
The bare perusal of the Job Sheets placed on record show that the handset in question is a defective on and OP 2 had failed to remove its defect.
In view of the above, we hold OP 2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:
The order shall be complied by the OP-2 within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs. 5,900/–. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.
Pronounced in open Forum on ........................
(S K SARVARIA)
PRESIDENT
(H M VYAS) (NIPUR CHANDNA)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.