Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/670

VIJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW BERCO ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                     Date of institution    :23.9.14

 

Complaint Case. No 670/15                                                                  Date of order:      5.11.16    

 

In the matter of

 

Vijay Kumar,

House No.J-1098,Jahangir Puri,

New Delhi.                                                                                                               COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

New Berco Electronics,

A-1, Raj Rani Market,

Main Najafgarh Road,                                                                                             OPPOSITE PARTY-1

New Delhi-59.                                                                                                      

M Sure (RV Mobile Solutions),

C-8/135, Keshavpuram,

Lawrence Road, Backside of C-8 Bus Stand,

New Delhi.                                                                                                               OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

Xolo,

A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301.           U.P.                                                                OPPOSITE PARTY-3

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            The present complaint is filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar, herein complainant, against New Berco Electronics & Ors under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 for compensation on account of deficiency in service and mental harassment.

2/-

            The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present  complaint as stated  are that the complainant  on 31.3.15 purchased one mobile handset Xolo Mobile 8X 1020 (White)  IMEI No.911414650284517 and 911414650385546  for sale consideration of Rs.8150/- vide invoice 10620 dated 31.3.15 from Opposite Party-1. The complainant inssured the mobile handset with Opposite Paty-2 on payment of Rs.850/- for two years.    The mobile handset developed fault in September-2015  within warranty and insurance.  The complainant tried to contact the  Opposite Party-2 for repair of the mobile handset several times telephonically.   But the telephones of the  Opposite Party-2 were found  switched off.  Therefore, he could not contact the Opposite Party-2 .  Thereafter he visited the  Opposite Party-1 and asked him to resolve his grievance and provide contact numbers of the Opposite Party-2. But to no effect.   The mobile handset of the complainant is still lying with the complainant for want of service. He is unable to use the same.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties 1,2, & 3 are liable to replace the defective handset.   Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite Parties to replace the mobile handset with new one of same model and pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-on account of litigation expenses.   

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.   The Opposite Parties 1 & 3 filed their separate  reply.    The Opposite Party-1  in its reply admitted that  the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant on 31.3.15 and was insured from the Opposite Party-2.  It is also admitted that the mobile handset has developed some fault.  The  Opposite Party-3 in their reply took preliminary objections that the complainant never contacted or lodged any complaint with them.    Therefore, there is no cause of action against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  They further asserted that there is no manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  But  despite service the Opposite Party-2 did not appear and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.3.16. 

3/-

            The complainant filed rejoinder of the reply of the Opposite Party-3.  The complainant asserted that the insurance company Opposite Party-2 is sponsored by Opposite Party-3, therefore, the Opposite Party-3 is liable to indemnify the  Opposite Party-2.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the  part of all the  Opposite Parties 1, 2 & 3 and once again prayed for directions to the  Opposite Parties to replace  the mobile handset with a new mobile handset ,pay  Rs.20,000/- compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses . 

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant filed affidavit dated 8.4.16 reiterating his stand taken in the complaint and prayed for direction as  prayed for.  The complainant relied upon copy of invoice NO.10620 dated 31.3.15, copy of insurance/protection plan No.1557 dated 31.3.15 and copy of complaint lodged to SHO, police station, Uttam Nagar.  The Opposite Parties 1& 3 were  proceeded exparte vide order dated 1.8.16 and 30.3.16 respectively. 

            From perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant , it reveals that the complainant purchased a mobile handset Xolo 8X 1020 (White)  IMEI No.911414650284517 and 911414650385546  for sale consideration of Rs.8150/- from Opposite Party-1 vide invoice No.10620 dated 31.3.15.  The complainant insured the mobile handset on the same date from Opposite Party-2 by paying an amount of Rs.850/- for two years vide policy No.1557.  The mobile handset developed fault in and around September, 2015 within warranty and insurance .    

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

            The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.   The complainant from the affidavit, invoice and insurance policy has been able to show that the

 

4/-

complainant purchased one mobile handset Xolo-8X-1020 (White) IMEINo.911414650284517and911414650385546  for sale consideration of Rs.8150/- from Opposite Party-1 vide invoice No.10620 dated 31.3.15 and on the  same day he insured his mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.850/- with the Opposite Paty-2.  The mobile handset developed some fault in month of September .  The mobile handset could not be given for repairs to Opposite Party-2 as the same could not be contacted as their phone numbers were found switched off.  The complainant contacted the Opposite Party-1 for inquiry of whereabouts of the Opposite Party-2 to deliver the mobile handset for repairs or exchange/replace.  But the Opposite Party-1 also did not help the complainant.  Hence, there is unfair trade practice and negligence in service on the part of Opposite Party-2.   The mobile handset was covered under the protection plan of Opposite Party-2  for two years. The complainant has suffered loss of the mobile handset.  He is also deprived of his right to use the mobile handset.  He has also suffered pain, agony and harassment.    Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of mobile handset, insurance amount  and compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. 

            In the light of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.   We  direct Opposite Party-2 to pay Rs.8150/- cost of the mobile handset with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint ,Rs.850/- insurance amount and pay  Rs.1000/- as compensation   for mental pain, agony ,harassment and litigation expenses.  . 

            Order pronounced on   :5.11.16

·        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.

·        Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

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

  MEMBER                                         MEMBER                            PRESIDENT