Ranjit kumar sarkar filed a consumer case on 15 Mar 2017 against Paladin system in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/140 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Mar 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution: 19.02.2016
Complaint Case. No.140/16 Date of order: 15.03.2017
IN MATTER OF
Ranjit Kumar Sarkar, flat no. 166, Pocket-16, Sector-03, Adarsh Apartment, New Delhi-110075 Complainant
VERSUS
M/S Paladin System Pvt. ltd., West End mall, 114, 2nd Floor, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Opposite party
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
The Brief relevant facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset “Galaxy S3“ with IMEI no. 358422050323322 dated 01.02.2014 from M/s KP telecom manufactured by Samsung for sale consideration of Rs 24,900/-. The complainant insured the mobile handset with M/s Home serve unit of M/s Paladin System Pvt. Ltd. herein the opposite party on 01.02.2014 by paying an amount of Rs. 2490/- for two years. The handset developed fault in last week of 2014 due to fall from hand of the complainant. The complainant called the opposite party and registered complaint no. HSTK02969 on 05.01.2015. The opposite party picked up the mobile handset on 06.01.2015 vide job sheet no. 6971. The opposite party told the complainant that the handset will be repaired and delivered on or before 21.01.2015. The complainant inquired about status of the mobile handset from the opposite party. They told that the complainant that the handset is not covered under warranty as per terms and conditions of the protection plan vide letter dated 19.02.2015. The complainant several times communicated with the opposite party. But neither satisfactory reply was given nor mobile handset set was repaired and returned. The case of the complainant is that the handset was deposited with the opposite party. There was crack only on the display screen and other faults are created by mishandling and negligence of technicians of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to replace the old mobile handset with new mobile handset, pay Rs.2490/- amount of protection plan and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment by the opposite party and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Notice of the complainant was sent to the opposite party. But none appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite service. Therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.06.2016.
When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit, he filed affidavit dated 02.09.2016 narrating facts of the complaint and relied upon copy of invoice dated 01.02.2014, protection plan vide PPP no. 7570 dated 01.02.2014, copies of emails, copy of letter dated 19.02.2015, job sheet dated 06.01.2015 and copy of notice of organization international consumer rights protection council.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.
The case of the complainant is that the mobile hand set in dispute was under warranty and only display screen was broken. The other faults are due to mishandling and negligence on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, they are liable to repair the mobile handset and pay compensation.
From perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that the complainant purchased mobile handset “Galaxy S 3” IMEI no. 358422050323322 dated 01.02.2014 manufactured by Samsung from M/s KP telecom for sale consideration of Rs 24,900/-. The complainant insured the mobile handset with M/s Home Serve unit of M/s Paladin System Pvt. Ltd. on payment of Rs. 2490/- for two years. The mobile handset developed some fault due to fall and was given to the opposite party for repairs on 06.01.2015 vide job sheet no.6971. The opposite party vide letter dated 19.02.2015 repudiate the insurance claim of the complainant stating that it is not covered under warranty as per clause number 10 of the terms and conditions of the protection plan. Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce clause no. 10 of the insurance plan. Which reads as under:
“Mother board replacement is not covered under warranty”
Therefore, the complainant is unable to prove that the mobile handset is within warranty. There is no material on record to support his version that mobile handset developed fault due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The affidavit of the complainant only is not sufficient to prove that there is any unfair trade practice, negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the light of above discussion and observations, there is no merit in the complaint. Hence fails. Resultantly dismissed.
Order pronounced on : 15.03.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) (URMILA GUPTA) (R.S. BAGRI) MEMBER 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.