DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 15/2015
Date of Institution - 16/01/2015
Date of Order - 20/07/2016
In matter of
Mr Naresh Kumar, adult
312, D Block, Ganesh Nagar
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092…………………..………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1- M/s Right Solutions
Office –C – 45, 3rd Floor, Gali no. 15,
Madhu Vihar, Delhi-92
2- Mobile Cafe
Shop No. 13, Main Market,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi 92
3-LG Electronics
Mathura Road, New Delhi ………..………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocatess-Puneet Tandon & Rahul Sharma
Opponent- Ex Parte
Corum- 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
Mr. Naresh Kumar complainant, purchased one mobile hand set from OP1 model no LGVUP-895 vide bill no. 260 dated 24/01/2014 for Rs 20,000/- having EMIE-353896053927251. He also paid Rs 2000/- for additional warranty for two years from the date of purchase.
Complainant state that after few months from purchase date, hand set developed problem so he took the phone to authorized service station of LG at D 30-31, 1st Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 92, wrote as no display and poor battery backup.
Complainant again visited service centre in the month of Nov. 2014. This hand set was in warranty. So complainant asked OP3 to pay the claim as it has given insurance.
Complainant states that OPs conduct was illegal and unlawful towards complainant and claimed Rs 20,000/- refund as the cost of handset. Besides Rs 50,000/-as compensation and Litigation cost Rs 25000/.
After perusal of complaint, notices were served. OP’s Sales Manager appeared and put up his appearance and received complaint copy but did not file written statement or evidence. OPs also did not appear on next dates of hearing. Hence, case was proceeded Ex Parte.
Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidence on affidavit which were on record and not controverted
We scrutinized the complaint and evidences filed by complainant, it has been observed that complainant has not put the facts correctly in referance to para 5 and 6 which shows service centre address, but has not put under the list of OP2 and cause of actions are not clear.
The said mobile, as per complaint, developed some battery related problems after nine months of purchase. Instead of getting repaired from OPs authorized service centre, complainant asked for refund of phone amount from OP3, manufacturer of the goods/phone which was not warranted.
On scrutinizing terms and condition filed by the complainant para 12 which reads as “ in event of the handset being beyond repairs the same would either be provided with a refurnished mobile handset or subject to a refund according to the compensation chart as per sub clause 4 of the chart, where time of purchase is in between 9 to 12 months then up to 25% compensation will be given on current value”. To claim compensation in such cases, customer/complainant has to return all the accessories and bill to the Right Solution. But in this very case, no such efforts were adopted by the complainant. This is clear from the defect noted in the job sheet/ job card where battery related problems were mentioned.
Hence, we care of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove the deficiencies of Ops. We do not find any merit in this case and complaint deserve to be dismissed.
Complaint is dismissed without any cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari -Member Mrs -Harpreet Kaur-Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
