Delhi

East Delhi

CC/45/2015

NEERAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.45/2015:

In the matter of:        

Sh. NeerajBadhwar

S/o. Sh. Ashok Badhwar

R/o.  Flat No.99, Karishma Apartments,

Plot No.27, I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

Delhi – 110 092                       

            Complainant 

Vs

 

1. New Mobile Care India Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate Office:

#201, Suneja Tower – 2,

District Centre Janakpuri,

New Delhi – 110 058

Regd. Office:

WZ – 109, Street No.1,

Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,

New Delhi – 110 045

 

2. The Proprietor,

The New Mobile Mart

R – 52, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur,

Near Metro Pillar No.44,

Delhi – 110 044

Respondents

                                                                                    Date of Admission –19/02/2015

                                                                           Date of Order          - 22/07/2015

ORDER

 

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Karbonn Mobile Handset, Model No. A – 119, from Respondent No.II for Rs.6,380/-vide Receipt No. 2527 Book No.51 dated 29/07/2014 .  Lured by Respondent No.II for getting the said handset insured against any loss/damage, the complainant got the said handset insured from Respondent No.I and paid Rs.670/- vide Receipt No.73053 dated 29/07/2014 to Respondent No.II for it.  The Insurance Plan carried a validity of two years from the date of purchase of the said handset.  It is alleged that the screen of the said handset got cracked after sometime and the matter was reported to the insurance company.  After repeated telephonic reminders they collected the said handset after fifteen days vide Job Card No.3671 dated 11/10/2014.  As per the terms of the policy the respondent was under an obligation to return the handset within 7 to 14 working days after rectifying its defects.  Repeated reminders to return the said handset after rectification of defects and the legal notice dated 01/12/2014 upon the respondents were of no consequence.  The respondents have not returned the handset back to the complainant till date.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for directions to the respondents to repair and return the said handset, pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for harassment , mental pain and agony, costs and any other relief which this Forum deems fit and proper.

            In response to the notices issued to the respondents, none put up appearance.  Case proceeded exparte against them. 

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case.

Heard and perused the record.

            It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a Cashless Protection Plan of Respondent No.I from Respondent No.II for his Karbonn Mobile handset Model No. A – 119 with IMEI No.911359052588223 for Rs.670/- vide Invoice No.2527 dated 29/07/2014.  The said Plan was valid for two years from the date of purchase of the said device i.e., 29/07/2014.  The complainant has filed on record the Copy of the Receipt of Payment of Rs.670/- bearing No.Plan ID No.NMC 73053 dated 29/07/2014 issued by Respondent No.II as proof of payment of subscription money for the said Cashless Protection Plan to Respondent No.II.  On perusal of the record a very astonishing fact has come to light that the said handset was submitted for repairs to M/s. Always Progressive India Pvt. Ltd. vide Job-Sheet No.3671 on 11/10/2014 with LCD Display Damage and Touch Not Working and it is still alleged to be lying with it and has not been returned back to the complainant. Not an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to show that M/s. Always Progressive India Pvt. Ltd. is the Authorized Service Centre of Karbonn and the complainant had submitted the said handset to it for repairs only by the permission of Respondent No.I as per the terms & conditions of the said Protection Plan so as to be entitled to claim the compensation as per the specified terms of the said Protection Plan.It is further specifically mentioned in the Protection Plan Terms &Conditions that the Repairs & Maintenance carried out by anyone other than those nominated by Respondent No.I shall not be covered by the said Plan. The complainant has also not filed on record any cogent documentary evidence to show that M/s. Always Progressive India Pvt. Ltd. was nominated by Respondent No.I to undertake repair and maintain of the mobile handsets covered by their Protection Plan.  In these circumstances, when the handset is neither in the possession, actual or constructive, of Respondent No.I nor it had been submitted it by the complainant to the Service Centre nominated by it or after taking permission of Respondent No.I as required under the Terms & Conditions of the said Protection Plan, no liability can be cast upon it in respect of the said handset. 

Further, in the absence of impleadment of M/s. Always Progressive India Pvt. Ltd.as a necessary party to the present complaintby the complainant, no relief can be granted to him in respect of the said handset.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we arrive at an inference that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

   (Subhash Gupta)                                  (Poonam Malhotra)                                (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                               Member                                           President