Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/302

PRADEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAPID COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

20 May 2015

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                       Date of institution            : 15.5.15

 

Case. No.DF-III/302/2015/                                                                        Date of order                            : 2.7.16

In the matter of :-

Sh. Pradeep C/o Sh. Satish Kumar,

P-140/24,  Karam Vihar, Near Kendriya Vidalaya-1,

Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010.                                                          Complainant

Vs.

1.        M/s. Rapid Communication (Vikaspuri),

            WZ-1, Ganesh Nagar,

            Metro Station Pillar No. 535

            New Delhi.                                                                            Opposite Party-1

 

2.        Customer Service Head,

            Micromax House, 90-B,

            Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.                      Opposite Party-2

 

 (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

 

            The present complaint is filed by Sh. Pradeep Kumar herein complainant against Rapid Communication and another U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the compensation on account of loss of mobile hand set and deficiency in service.   

 

            The brief relevant facts for disposal of the complaint are that the complainant on 7.7.14 purchased  one mobile handset of make Micromax Unite-2 A106 from M/s. Sachin Electronics WZ-1563, Nangal Rai, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs.7200/- vide invoice No. 1383 dated 7.7.14.   The mobile

-2-

handset has two  SIM slots having one normal and another micro chip.  The complainant used  normal  SIM  but  there  were  frequent  messages  from the mobile system to use micro slot.    Therefore, the  complainant  arranged  for micro SIM but the mobile handset did not support the micro SIM.   The mobile handset was deposited with the service centre (OP-1) on 11.10.14 for repairs.   The complainant requested on 12.1014 to opposite party No.1 to give his data back up. The opposite party-1 asked him to collect the data.   The complainant on next day visited the opposite party No.1 for collecting the data back up.   But he was shocked to know that the mobile handset was missing from the shop of opposite party-1.   Asstt. Manager Sh. Ronit of Opposite party -1 informed him the mobile handset might be with some of the employee’s of opposite party-1 .   On 17.10.14, opposite party-1 informed the complainant  that the mobile handset has been traced.     The complainant on next day visited the opposite party-1 and  while checking the handset he noticed that the mobile handset in question has been damaged.  There were scratches on camera.  The screen was white and was blinking.   When the complainant asked the opposite party-1 about the condition of the mobile handset.    The Manager told that due to technical problem the software of the mobile handset has been wiped out.   The complainant  visited the Opposite party-1 several times and inquired about the status of his mobile handset.  But no satisfactory reply was given by them.  The complainant lodged the complaint with opposite party-2 vide complaint No.55271 dated 16.12.14.  But opposite party-2 was unable to redress the grievance of the complainant.    The mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned by opposite party-1 till today.    Due to deficiency in  the  service  on  the  part  of  the  opposite  parties -1 & 2,  complainant has

-3-

purchased a new mobile handset.    Hence, the present complaint for direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 7200/- cost of the mobile handset with interest and compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.   Therefore, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.12.2015.

 

            When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence he filed affidavit dated 8.4.2016 and relied upon invoice No.1383 dated 7.7.14, copy of letter dated 6.12.14 and  2.2.2015, job sheets No.30684101412717009 dated 11.10.14 and 0306841014128449263 dated 18.10.14.   He has narrated the facts of the complainant once again in the affidavit dated 8.4.16.   He deposed that the mobile handset was within warranty period.  He asserted that due to SIM slot fault, the mobile handset was given for repairs  to opposite party-1 vide job sheets No.30684101412717009 and 0306841014128449263 dated 11.10.14 and 18.10.14 respectively.    Which shows that the mobile handset was within warranty and opposite party-1 did not return the mobile handset, to the complainant till date.

 

            From the perusal of the invoice dated 7.7.14 and job sheets 11.10.14 and dated 18.10.14, it reveals that the complainant purchased  one mobile handset Mircomax Unite-2 A106 with IMEI No. 911345004078272 /911345004578776 from  M/s.  Sachin   Electronics   WZ- 1563,  Nangal Rai,  New Delhi  for   sale

-4-

consideration of Rs.7200/- vide invoice No. 1383 dated 7.7.14.   The mobile handset was given to opposite party No.1 for repairs within warranty.   They neither repaired the mobile handset nor returned the same.

 

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the complaint, affidavit dated 8.4.16, invoice dated 7.7.14, copy of letters dated 6.12.14 and 2.2.15, job sheets dated 11,10.14 and 18.10.14 carefully and thoroughly .

 

            The version of the complainant has remained un-rebutted and unchallenged.   Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the un-rebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by him.   The complainant from the un-rebutted affidavit, invoice and job sheets has been able to show that one mobile handset Mircomax Unite-2 A106 with IMEI No. 911345004078272 /911345004578776 was purchased from M/s. M/s. Sachin Electronics                  WZ-1563, Nangal Rai, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs.7200/- vide invoice No. 1383 dated 7.7.14.   The mobile handset developed some fault.   Therefore, the complainant delivered the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 on 11.10.14 for repairs.  But they did not return the handset to the complainant till today.  The complainant also lodged the complaint with opposite party No.2 vide consumer complaint No. 55271 dated 16.12.14 being manufacturer.   But opposite party No.2 never gave satisfactory response.   The complainant is deprived of his valuable right to use the mobile handset.  He has suffered loss of mobile handset.  Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties - 1 & 2.  The opposite parties- 1 & 2 are

 

-5-

jointly and severally liable.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to recover                Rs. 7200/- the cost of the mobile handset.   He is also entitled to recover Rs.7,000/- for mental pain agony, sufferings, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

            In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.   Therefore, we direct the opposite parties - 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 7200/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% p.a. from filing the present complaint till actual realisation of the amount and Rs. 7,000/- for mental pain agony, sufferings, harassment and litigation expenses. They jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

 

Order pronounced on   : 2.7.2016

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT