Delhi

North East

CC/359/2015

Sh. Roop Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Telecom Centre - Opp.Party(s)

29 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:

DISTRICT NORTH EAST - IV

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.359/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Roop Chand S/o Shri Pursootam R/o B-318, Gali No-18, Maujpur Delhi-53.	Complainant
	Versus
1       2         3	National Telecome Centre Office- V-565, Gali No. 16, Main Road Vijay Park, Maujpur Delhi-53.   Gurukul Technology For Mobiles Office-F-671, 1st Floor, Khajuri Khas Main Opp-Bhajanpura Bus Stand New Delhi-94.   Spice Mobile Ltd S, Global Knowledge Park 19A & 19B Sector-125, Noida 201301.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	23.09.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	29.03.2017

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint complainant had purchased a mobile model No. MI 449 3G on 22-4-2015 from OP1 for a sum of Rs. 3600/-. OP3 is manufacturer of mobile and OP2 is service centre thereof. Since the very beginning the mobile was defective and after one month it started creating problem by not supporting 3G connection. On complaint OP get the phone deposited for repair on 6-7-2015 by issuing a jobsheet. As per OP2 the mobile was to be returned back after repair within seven days but the same was not returned even after visiting five times, after given seven days. Now more than seventy five days have been passed but OP2 had not returned mobile phone after repairing the same and harassing the complainant. Pleading sale of defective mobile by OP1 and deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and OP3 complainant has prayed for directions to the OPs to refund cost of the mobile phone with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-
2. After notice nobody appeared on behalf of OP2 and OP3 inspite of service on 19.10.2015 and 20.10.2015. Hence vide order dated 10.12.2015 OP2 and OP3 were proceeded against ex parte. in respect of OP1 notices sent to it received back unserved with postal remark `No such Firm’ while complainant insisted that OP1 is still existing on the given address. In support of this contention complainant has filed an affidavit alongwith photograph showing OP1, still working on the given address. On the basis of above affidavit and photograph this forum took the view that OP1 is still existing on given address and deliberately avoiding service. Hence vide order dated 10.12.2015 OP1 was proceeded against ex parte.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. As per retail invoice dated 22-4-2015, placed on record it is clear that OP1 has sold the mobile in question to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs. 3600/-. Jobsheet placed on record, by the complainant, show that it is issued by OP2 on 6-7-2015. This jobsheet show that at the time of deposit of mobile phone the warranty was void due to some broken part in the mobile for which complainant had to pay Rs. 400/-.
6. On the basis of above findings complainant has established that complainant purchased the mobile in question from OP1. There arose defect in the mobile phone within few days. To rectify the same complainant had deposited the mobile to OP1. Original job sheet being complainant himself shows that the said mobile is still not been returned back by OP2, after repairs, even after passing almost more than a year. However, during the course of arguments complainant states that though there was no broken part in the mobile which complainant carried for rectifying the problem of not connecting 3G but due to some mis-handling by the officials of OP2 itself the problem reported in job sheet took place and complainant agreed to pay Rs. 400/- for the same only under pressure. Even thereafter the mobile is not yet repaired and given back to the complainant by the OPs. With respect to defence of OPs even after service on all the OPs nobody put their respective appearances before this forum and contested the complainant. Therefore, all the evidences placed on the record in support of the contention of the complainant remains uncontroverted. Hence the same are deemed to be proved.
7. Therefore, we find deficiency in service on the part of OP2 as service centre and OP3 as its principal. With respect to liability of OP1 the record before this forum show that complainant has failed to prove that on purchase there was any defect in the mobile.
8. Therefore, we hold OP2 and OP3 guilty for deficiency in service and direct them, jointly and severally

1. To get the mobile hand set repaired to the satisfaction of complainant within seven days from the receipt of this order and handover the same to the complainant, within that period, after prior information to him at his given address against payment of Rs. 400/-.
2. To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost.

Failing which to pay entire cost of mobile being Rs. 3600/- within 15 days from the receipt of this order.  After 15 days this invoice value of Rs. 3600/- shall carry  interest thereon @12 p.a., till final realization.          

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.  File be consigned to record room.

 

11.  Announced on 29-03-2017

 

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)                  Member