Delhi

North East

CC/225/2015

Kapil Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: N-E

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.225/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Kapil Dev S/o Indar Singh R/o House No. 235, Block A-2, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-110093.		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s Rahul Telecom Through Proprietor F-1/40, DDA Flats, Sunder Nagri, Delhi-110093.   Intex Through Manager DDA- 18/2, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi-110020.   Intex Through Incharge H & T Services C-418, Yamuna Vihar, Front C-5,Market, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		29.06.2015
			DATE OF DECISION      :		27.04.2016

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

Order

 

1.           The facts, in brief, relevant for the disposal of the complaint are that the complainant on 3.5.2015 purchased an Intex mobile phone from OP1 for Rs. 9000/- vide receipt No. 3367 with one year warranty. On 25.5.2015 the mobile in question stopped functioning and the complainant took the mobile to OP1 who sent him to OP3, the service centre. OP3 returned the mobile to complainant stating that the same has been rectified. It is further stated that on 11.6.2015 the mobile again stopped functioning and complainant took the mobile to OP3 and OP3 deposited the mobile and issued job sheet and till date the mobile is with OP3. On 25.6.2015 when the complainant went to take the delivery of mobile to OP3, OP3 told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and the same cannot be rectified. The complainant visited all the three OPs for the repair of the mobile but all in vain. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 9000/- , the cost of mobile phone, Rs. 25000/- for compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses.
2.           Notice was issued to all the OPs but nobody has entered appearance and hence were proceeded with ex-parte on 21.9.2015.
3.           Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the facts stated in the complaint. The complainant has filed copy of the bill dated 3.5.2015 and job sheets at 11.6.2015 and 25.5.2015 which are marked as Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-3 respectively. Both the job sheets placed on record establish that the mobile in question is within the warranty. In the job sheet dated 25.5.2015 Annexure C-3 it is mentioned that the mobile in question has heating problem with battery drainage very fast and in job sheet dated 11.6.2015 Annexure C-2 it is mentioned  “Application not working Auto off, Handset heating/battery heating, charging related problem sensor problem.” All the OPs have served but chosen not to enter appearance and rebut the allegation contained in the complaint. We have no other option but to accept the case of the complainant. In this case the complainant purchased the mobile on 3.5.2015 and problem in the mobile erupt on 25.5.2015 and again on 11.6.2015 and since then the mobile is with OP3. It has also been specifically stated by the complainant in his complaint as well as in evidence by way of affidavit that OP3 has told him that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question and the same cannot be rectified.
4.           We, therefore, hold all the OPs guilty of deficiency in service jointly and severally and direct them to pay Rs. 9000/- cost of mobile with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of mobile by the complainant and Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation.
5.             Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6.           File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  27.04.2016) 

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member