GURMEET SINGH filed a consumer case on 22 Oct 2016 against SARNA COMMUNICATION in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/263 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Oct 2016.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution :24.4.15
Complaint Case. No 263/15 Date of order:22.10.16
In the matter of
Gurmeet Singh,
House No.D-195,F-F, D Block,
Near Central School,
Tagore Garden Extn.,
New Delhi-27. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sarna Communication,
D-169, Shop No.4,
Jail Road, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi-18. OPPOSITE PARTY-1
Paladin System Pvt. Ltd.,
27/5, Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi-18.
Changed address:
Paladin System Pvt. Ltd.,
E-2, 2nd Floor,
Sector 63, Noida. OPPOSITE PARTY-2
Gionee Mobile (Syntech Technology Pvt. Lt.)
F-2, Block No.B-1, G.F.
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-44. OPPOSITE PARTY-3
Home Serve,
27/5 Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi-18. OPPOSITE PARTY-4
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT
The present complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by Gurmeet Singh herein complainant against Sarna Communications & Ors.
The brief relevant facts for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset Gionee S 5.5 on 25.8.14 vide invoice No.1423 for sale consideration of Rs.23,300/-. The complainant insured the mobile handset from Opposite Party-4 on the same day on advice of Opposite Party-1 by paying an amount of Rs.2090/- for two years vide Protection Plan No.23581. The mobile handset developed some fault after one month. The complainant informed Opposite Party-2 and same was picked up by themfor repairs . They have neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset. Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.23,300/- cost of mobile handset, Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.
Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties. But none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.1.16. The Opposite Party-4 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.3.16.
When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence, he filed affidavit dated 14.7.16 and relied upon invoice dated 25.8.14, Protection Plan dated 25.8.14 and job sheet dated 8.4.15. He has narrated facts of the complaint once again in the affidavit dated 24.7.16. He deposed that the mobile handset was insured with Opposite Party-4 for two years and was within extended warranty when it was picked by the Opposite Party-2 for repairs. But the mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned till today.
On perusal of the douments, it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset Gionee S 5.5 on 25.8.14 vide invoice No.1423 for sale consideration of Rs.23,300/-. The complainant insured the mobile handset from Opposite Party-4 on the same day by paying an amount of Rs.2090/- for two years for extended warranty vide Protection Plan dated 25.8.14 The mobile handset developed some fault and same was picked up on 8.4.15 by Opposite Party-2 for repairs. The mobile handset is not returned by Opposite Party-2 till today.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the 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 affidavit of the complainant. The complainant from affidavit dated 24.6.16, invoice dated 25.8.14 and job sheet dated 8.4.15 has been able to show that one mobile handset Gionee S 5.5 was purchased by him on 25.8.14 vide invoice No.1423 for sale consideration of Rs.23,300/-. The complainant on the same day insured the mobile handset with Opposite Party-4 by paying an amount of RS.2090/- for two years. The mobile handset was picked up by Opposite Party-2 for repairs vide job sheet dated 8.4.15. The Opposite Party-2 has neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset till today. Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties-2 & 4. The complainant is deprived of his right to use the mobile handset. He has also suffered loss of mobile handset. Therefore, Opposite Parties-2 & 4 are liable to pay Rs.23,300/- the cost of mobile handset and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
In the light of above discussion and obervations, the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties 2 & 4. They are jointly and severely liable. Therefore, we direct Opposite Parties 2 & 4 to pay a sum of Rs.23,300/- the cost of mobile handset alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till actual realisaton. We also award compensation of RS.5,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
Order pronounced on :22.10.2016
· 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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.