Delhi

East Delhi

CC/317/2016

LEENA SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.K TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         317 /2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  01/07/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 02/11/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          03/11/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mrs. Leena Sachdeva, adult   

w/o- Sh Dalip Sachdeva  

R/o- 474, Jheel Kuranja,

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031..………………………………..……..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s S K Telecom  

D-31, opp. Pillor no. 34,  

Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar Delhi 110092

 

2- M/s Intex Co Globe Connection & Services

47A, Vijay Block, opp. Pillor no. 54,

Behind Nathu Sweets,  

Vika Marg Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………..……..…….……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 Qua Life mobile bearing IMEI 911441301861815 on 18/07/2015 from M/s SK telecom / OP1 for a sum of Rs 5990/ (Ex CW1/1) with one year standard warranty.  

The said mobile after some time was getting hang frequently, so was taken to the authorised service centre / OP2 and problem was rectified on the same day and mobile was returned to the complainant (Ex CW1/2). But after some time mobile did not work properly, so again taken to the OP2 and mobile was deposited. It was assured to return after some days.

When complainant contacted OP2, was told to pay Rs 3200/- for repairing which was not paid so, OP2 returned the mobile without repair to the complainant (Ex CW1/3).

It was stated that though her mobile was in warranty tenure, OP 2 did not repair her mobile and asked for heavy amount. Seeing unfair trade practice of OP2, she filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of the mobile a sum of Rs 5999/-with compensation of Rs 4,000/- for physical and mental harassment. 

Notices were served. OP1 appeared and received the copy of the complainant, but did not submit their written statement and even OP2 also not put appearance. Even after serving the notice, both the OPs did not put appearance; hence, OPs were preceded Ex Parte.

Complainant submitted her Ex Parte evidence by way of affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that her mobile was under warranty and OP2 neither rectified defects, but asked to pay the amount which was not paid. She was having her mobile with her, but could not use it. So, all her contents were correct and true.  

Even on the date of arguments, OP did not appear despite of serving notices, so arguments were heard from the complainant and file was perused. Order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was seen that the said mobile had developed some problem which were not manufacturing defects and mobile was under warranty. So, the act of OP2 was seen as deficient in providing services. There was no allegation against OP1. 

Thus, we come to the conclusion that OP2 shall rectify the defect in 15 days from the receiving of the order. If OP2 fails to do so, then have to pay the cost of mobile Rs 5999/-within 30 days. We also award compensation of Rs 2000/-to be paid by OP2 as harassment.   

The copy of this order be sent to the parties under Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                           Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                               

                                                     Sukhdev Singh  President