Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/633

Vinay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahni Communication - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

                                                                                                        Date of institution:  10.09.2015  

Complaint Case. No.633/15                                                                                          Date of order:  13.01.2017                    

IN  MATTER OF

Vinay Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwan Sharma, RZ-14 Jain Colony , Part-2 Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                                                     Complainant

VERSUS

Sahni Communication, GF-29, Jyoti Shikhar, District Centre, Janakpuri-110058                                                                                                                                                           Opposite party-1

 

Gadget Cops, A-83, Sector-2, Noida, U.P. -201301, India                                                                                                                                                                                        Opposite party -2

 

 

 

 ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Micromax Canvas 2plus’from opposite party no.1for sale consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide invoice no.21730 dated 6.9.2013 and insured the mobile handset from opposite party no.2. The mobile handset developed some fault on 25.8.15 and the complainant contacted opposite party no. 1 for repair of the same .But opposite party 1 told the complainant to contact opposite party no.2 for repairs. The complainant approached opposite party no. 2 for repairs  of the mobile handset but they told the complainant that the mobile handset will be picked up by them after approval within 48 hours. The complainant again called the opposite party no. 2 but again they informed the complainant that the approval is still pending. The opposite party no. 2 on

 

-2-

07.09.2015 refused to repair the mobile handset. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But none appeared on their behalf.  Therefore, opposite parties are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.2.2016.

When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he filed affidavit dated12.5.16 and relied upon copy of invoice dated 6.9.13, copy of protection plan dated 6.9.13 ,copy of details of calls and copy of terms and condition of extended service warranty.  He has narrated the facts of the complaint once again in the Affidavit. He deposed that the mobile handset was insured with opposite party no.2 for two years. But the opposite party no.2 refused to repair the handset.

On perusal of the documents, it reveals that complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Micromax Canvas 2plus’ from opposite party no.1for sale consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide invoice no.21730 dated 6.9.2013 and insured the mobile handset from opposite party no.2 for two years. The mobile handset developed some fault on 25.8.15. The complainant contacted opposite party for repairs of mobile handset within extended warranty but they refused to repair the same.

We have heard complainant in person and have through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence and version of the complainant. The complainant from the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset ‘Micromax Canvas 2 plus’ from opposite party no.1for sale consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide invoice no.21730 dated 6.9.2013 and insured the mobile handset from opposite party no.2 for two years. The mobile handset developed some fault on 25.8.15. The complainant contacted opposite party no2 for repairs of mobile handset within extended warranty but they refused to repair the same. Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party no.2.  

The complainant purchased one mobile handset ‘Micromax Canvas 2 plus’from opposite party no.1for sale consideration of Rs. 10,800/- vide invoice dated 6.9.2013. He insured the mobile handset from opposite party no.2 for two years by paying an amount of Rs.1250/-.The mobile handset developed fault and the complainant approached opposite party no.2 for repairs within extended warranty. But opposite party 2 failed to repair the mobile handset. Therefore we are of the opinion that after deducting depreciation of the

   -3-   

mobile handset the complainant is entitled to Rs 6000/- depreciated cost of mobile handset and compensation of Rs 1000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment

In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Opposite Partyno.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.6000 /-  depreciated cost of mobile handset with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount. We further award compensation of Rs.1000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and for loss of use of mobile handset for almost one year and litigation expenses. 

Order pronounced on : 13.01.2017

• 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