Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/659

ATUL VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NET DOT SOLUTIONS - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution           : 18.9.15

 

Case. No.DF-III/659/2015 /                                                                        Date of order              : 12.7.16

In the matter of :-

Mr. Atul Verma,

RZ-40, Gali No.1,

Roshan Garden, Near Power House Bus stand

Najafgarh, New Delhi.                                                                              Complainant

 

Vs.

The Manager,

Net Dot Solutions,

5A/1, Tilak Nagar, Opposite Police Station,

Metro Pillar No. 492,

New Delhi -110018                                                                            Opposite Party-1

 

The Managing Director,

Nokia Corporate Office India,

Tower A&B, 5^th Floor, Sector-25A,

DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon

Haryana-122002.                                                                             Opposite Party-2

 

The Managing Director,

Nokia Delhi Regional Office,

Kailash Building, Flat No.1204,

12^th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                       Opposite Party-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

-2-

 

The Managing Director,

Nokia Pvt. Ltd., SP. Info City,

Industrial Plot No. 243, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-I, Dundahera, Gurgaon

Haryana-122016.                                                                          Opposite Party-4

 

(R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R  

            Brief facts as stated are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make NOKIA LUMIA 1020 through WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. with IMEI No. 357254057775415 for sale consideration of Rs. 47,999/- vide invoice No. KOL2015010055421 dated 13.1.15.   After few months the mobile handset developed some fault.  The complainant deposited the mobile handset with authorised service centre (OP-1) on 23.7.15 for repairs within warranty.  The opposite party-1 told the complainant that the handset has manufacturing defect and the same will be sent to opposite party-4 for repairs. But despite several communications with opposite party-4 to pick up mobile handset for repairs nobody picked up the mobile handset.  After almost one week official of opposite  party-1 picked up the mobile handset for repairs.  The opposite party-1 issued job sheet No. 113433527/150723/011 dated 23.7.15  and gave standby handset Lumia 720 to the complainant. This mobile handset was also not working properly.    Engineer from opposite party-4  brought the repaired handset.  But while changing SIM card, he accidently stuck complainant’s SIM card and in this process he broke SIM pins.        The engineer of opposite party-4 again took the mobile handset of the complainant on the same job sheet and promised to return next day.  The opposite party-4 failed to repair the handset and promised to give new handset within ten days.   But till today the handset

-3-

is neither returned nor repaired despite several communications.   Hence, the present complaint for directions to opposite parties to refund Rs. 47999/-, cost of mobile handset, Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment  and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation expenses.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.    Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded  ex-parte vide order dated 28.3.16.

 

            When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he filed his affidavit dated 21.5.16 and relied upon  invoice dated 13.1.15 and job sheet dated 23.7.15.   He again narrated the facts of the complaint in the affidavit dated 21.5.16.    He deposed that the handset within warranty due to some fault was given  for repairs to opposite party-1 vide job sheet dated 23.7.15 .

 

            From perusal of the documents, it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make NOKIA LUMIA 1020 through WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. with IMEI No. 357254057775415 for sale consideration of Rs. 47,999/- vide invoice No. KOL2015010055421 dated 13.1.15.      After few months the mobile handset developed some fault.  The complainant deposited the mobile handset with authorised service centre (OP-1) on 23.7.15 for repairs within warranty. 

 

 

-4-

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

 

            The version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.   Therefore, there  is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.   The complainant from the un-rebutted and unchallenged affidavit, invoice and job sheet has been able to show that  he purchased one mobile handset make NOKIA LUMIA 1020 through WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. with IMEI No. 357254057775415 for sale consideration of Rs. 47,999/- vide invoice No. KOL2015010055421 dated 13.1.15.      After few months the mobile handset developed some faults.  The complainant deposited the mobile handset with authorised service centre (OP-1) on 23.7.15 for repairs within warranty. But the handset is not returned till today.  The complainant  is deprived of his valuable right to use the mobile handset and has suffered loss of mobile handset.   The opposite party-1 is authorised service centre of opposite parties – 2 to 4. The opposite parties 2 to 4 are manufacturers.  The opposite parties failed to redress grievance of the complainant.  The mobile handset is also not returned to him by opposite parties.    Therefore, there  is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties-1 to 4.   Hence, the complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 47999/- as cost of the mobile handset.  He is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 10000/- for mental pain, agony, suffering and litigation expenses.

 

 

 

-5-

            In the light above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.     Therefore, the  opposite parties-1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 47,999/-, cost of the mobile handset, with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the present  complaint till actual realisation of the amount and Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain, agony, suffering and litigation expenses.   They are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

 

Order pronounced on   :

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• File be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT