View 9785 Cases Against Mobile
Avneet Singh filed a consumer case on 05 May 2017 against New Mobile Care in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/758 and the judgment uploaded on 11 May 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution: 18.11.2014
Complaint Case. No.758/14 Date of order: 05.05.2017
IN MATTER OF
Avneet Singh S/O ShriJoginder Singh R/O WZ-13A, Street no.5, New Sahib Pura, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 Complainant
VERSUS
New Mobile Care India Pvt. Ltd., R/O WZ-109, Street no.1, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 Opposite party no. 1
Always Progressive India Pvt. Ltd., C-127, Phase-1, Narian Industrial Area, New Delhi-110028 Opposite party no. 2
Mobile Planet, Shop no.9, D.D.A. Building Plot no.7A, Distt. Centre, JanakPuri, New Delhi-110058 Opposite party no.3
HTC, G-4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001
Opposite party no.4
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
The present complaint U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act is filed by ShriAvneetSingh named above herein the complainant with averments that he purchased one mobile handset of make and model“HTC desire XC white” with IMEI no. 357213050294469 from opposite party no.3 manufactured by opposite party no.4 vide invoice no. 2013-14/R1-06761 for sale consideration of Rs.16,500/- on 29.01.2014. On the same day on persuasion of opposite party no.3 he purchased cashless protection plan from theopposite party no.1 vide plan ID no. NMC 33524 for two years.The mobile handset developed fault with regard to software heating and hanging. Therefore,the complainant on 22.03.2014 deposited the handset with opposite party no.1 vide job sheet no. NMCD4382 for repairs.But the problem was not resolved.Hence the complainant again deposited the handset withM/S S.K. Enterprises vide jobsheet no. DEL019-0001596 dated 13.06.2014. But the fault persisted, therefore, the complainant deposited the handset on 23.09.2014 with opposite party no.2 vide receipt no.2090. But the fault remainedunresolved. The mobile handset is in possession of opposite parties no.1 and 2. The complainant several times visited the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to enquire about the status of his mobile handset. But to no effect. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 28.10.2014. Butthe opposite parties neither replied the legal notice nor resolved grievance of the complainant. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile hand set with new mobile handset of same make and model and pay Rs.66,500/- on account of compensation.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of theopposite parties. Therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.12.2015.
When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence he filed affidavit dated 28.07.2016 narrating facts of the complaint and prayed for refund of cost of mobile handset of Rs.16,500/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest of@ 24% till actual realization. In support of his version he relied upon copy of invoice no.2013-14/RI-06761 dated 29.01.2014, copy of cashless protection plan dated 29.01.2014 and copies of job sheets dated 13.06.2014, 23.09.2014 and 22.08.2014.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
The version of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence of the complaint. From his unrebutted and unchallenged version and evidence he is able to show that he purchased one mobile handset of make and model “HTC desire XC white” with IMEI no.357213050294469 from opposite party no.3 manufactured by opposite party no.4 vide invoice no. 2013-14/R1-06761 for sale consideration of Rs.16,500/- on 29.01.2014. The complainant on the same day on persuasion of opposite party no.3 purchased cashless protection plan from opposite party no.1 vide plan ID no. NMC 33524 for two years. The mobile handset developed fault and was given for repairs within warranty to opposite parties no.1 and2.But the same is neither repaired nor returned till today. The opposite party no.1 has insured the mobile handset and opposite party no.2 is authorized service center of opposite party no.4. The complainant has suffered loss of the mobile handset. He is also deprived to use the mobile handset. The opposite parties no.1,2 and 3 are negligent and there is deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties no.1,2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of mobile handset and pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
In light of above discussion and observation we direct opposite parties no.1,2 and 3 to pay Rs. 16,500/- cost of mobile handset with interest @9% from the date of filing till actual realization and to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
Order pronounced on : 05.05.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) (R.S. BAGRI) MEMBER PRESIDENT
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.