Delhi

East Delhi

CC/603/2015

HARKESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISHA COMM - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       603 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                26/08/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               25/10/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         01/10/2016  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr Harkesh Singh, adult   

S/o   Sh. Pratap Singh 

R/o  35/223, Trilok Puri

Delhi 110091 ………….…………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Nisha Communication 

F2, Village Gazipur

Delhi 110096

 

2 Globe Connections and services   

(Autho. Service centre) 

23, 1^st Floor, Shakarpur, Oppo. Metro pillar 60

Vikas Marg, Delhi 92……………………………………………………………………Opponents

 

Complainant……………………………………In Person

Opponent 1&2 ..……………………………...Ex Parte

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased Intex Aqua 3G+ mobile handset under the name of Surjit Kumar from OP1 on dated 17/06/2015 vide invoice no. 823 for a sum of Rs 3500/-having MSN : 15V03236728050 having color white and SAP code 2199106413. The said mobile had standard warranty of one year.  After some time, mobile had automatic switched off and disconnection problem as soon as SIM was inserted in other mobile phone.  

 

 

Complainant lodged complaint to OP2and narrated problems in his mobile. OP 2 assured that the problem would be rectified in short time. After the repair, mobile handed over to complainant. Again after some time the same problem re occurred on 12/08/2015. OP2 after inspecting the phone said that the PCB had damaged and no warranty would be given on the said mobile. Complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs 1500/- which was paid. Vide Ex CW1/2a. Complainant stated that he was told about his mobile was under warranty cover, but internal damage had occurred to PCB which would require to be changed, so complainant paid the amount vide Ex CW1/2 and CW1/2a. When complainant went to collect the phone, OP2 did not return the said mobile. By this act of deficiency in the service of OP2, filed this complaint claiming compensation of sum of RS 60,000/- with Rs 50,000/- for damages and Rs 11000/- as litigation charges.  

Notices were served as per the postal department report as notices were delivered. OPs did not put their appearance nor did submit written statement, case proceed Ex Parte. Complainant filed Ex Parte evidence on affidavit. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant had deposited his mobile with OP2 for repair just within two month of its purchase and the said mobile was not returned to complainant. It was also seen that the said mobile was purchased in other name and claimant was not a genuine complainant. Though the said mobile was under standard warranty of one year, but PCB was damaged due to water/moisture present over it. As per the terms and condition of warranty in Ex CW1/1, internal damages do not come under warranty.

So, we come to the conclusion that complaint is devoid of merit and deserved to be dismiss, so dismissed without cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                            (Dr) P N Tiwari  Member

 

                                                             Shri Sukhdev Singh President