Delhi

New Delhi

CC/260/2014

Anil Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. RMP Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/260/14                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Anil Kholi,

17-A, Krishan Kunj Extension,

Part-1, Street No.4-A,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. RMP Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Gadget Cops),

Through its Owner/Proprietor/Director,

T-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New Delhi-1100020

 

2. Yours Communication,

Through its Owner/Proprietor/Director,

R/o 11/87, Geeta Colony, Near Ramlilla Ground Chowk, New Delhi-110031

 

3. Xolo Care, (Authorised Center),

Through its Owner/Proprietor/Director,

F1 Info Solution & Services P

M/s. Service City,

201, 2^nd fl, Sagar Plaza,

Behind PSK, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092

                        ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The complainant had bought a mobile handset manufactured by OP3 from OP2 for Rs.9,400/- as per Annexure 15 with a warranty of 12 months on product of OP1. Complainant also took 2 years protection coverage for said product from OP1 as per Annexure II vides protection plan no.01-1008562, paying extra Rs.8,00/- to OP1.

Suddenly the said handset fell down on earth and main touch screen of mobile was cracked. Thus, complainant approached immediately to OP1 and said set was collected by OP1 executive Mr. Surjeet Jha on 13.01.14 and he promised to replace the handset and new handset will be delivered shortly to him or replace original touch screen as per Annexure III. Complainant again made a call to OP1 after 7 days regularly delivery of mobile handset but OP again sought 10 days more time to deliver the product. Complainant again called customer care of OP1 about status of handset but no satisfactory answer was given by the executive of OP1. Ultimately complainant himself approached OP1 to collect handset. The said handset was delivered without battery as battery was not available in his OP1 office. The said product was delivered from Chandigarh to the complainant on 10.02.14 but it was found defective due to local screen fixed. Complainant again approached customer care of OP1 but there was no response till 10.02.14. Ultimately OP1 again collected the handset on 25.02.14 but OP1 failed to repair the same and defective handset is still lying with OP1.

Ultimately complainant filed this complaint to the Forum but OP’s were proceeded exparte on 04.06.14.

While screening expart evidence, it clearly reveals that OP1 could not rectify the said product despite two years protection coverage apart from 12 months warranty to said product. It appears that OP1 marketed defective product in the market and complainant was also one of the victim. OP1 collected said product a number of time from complainant office but it could not be rectified till one year. Still the product in question is still lying neither with OP1 which appears that OP1 is held guilty/deficient/as well as unfair trade practice to market defective product to collect money from innocent people through eye catching publicity.

Thus, OP3 and OP2 are jointly & severally directed to refund Rs.9,400/- with interest of 9% from date of 13.01.14 till payment. OP2 to return Rs.8,00/- for protection coverage along with 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization. We also award Rs.5,000/- as litigation & harassment expenses.

        The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 06.06.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER