Tikam Singh filed a consumer case on 29 Feb 2016 against Shiva Stores & etc. in the North East Consumer Court. The case no is CC/234/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 16 Mar 2016.
Delhi
North East
CC/234/2014
Tikam Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Shiva Stores & etc. - Opp.Party(s)
29 Feb 2016
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH EAST
2nd Floor, 16B/3, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110020
Maxx
Through its General Manager,
16th Floor, D.L.H. Corporation Park,
Opposite Gore Goan N.T.N.L.,
S.V. Road Gore Goan Mumbai West 400062
Opposite Parties
DATE OF INSTITUTION:
22.04.2014
DATE OF DECISION :
29.02.2016
N.K. Sharma, President
Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma
Order
The case of the complainant is that on 24.8.2013 complainant purchased a mobile set of Max Company for Rs. 3100/- with one year warranty. Immediately after its purchase there was problem of display in the handset and the complainant visited OP1 who asked him to go the OP2 or OP4, the service centers of OP1 and the complainant took the mobile there but the problem could not be rectified. On 18.11.2013 the complainant again took the mobile set to OP2 but it could not be rectified. On 29.12.2013 the complainant took the mobile to OP4 but in vain. It is further stated that the complainant made complaint to OP3, the manufacturer of the mobile set also. On 04.06.2014 OP4 told the complainant that there are so many problems, in the mobile phone like handset, touch, charging and ear lead and got deposited the mobile set with him and did not return the same till date despite several visits of the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service the complainant prayed that OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new mobile set or refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs. 3100/-, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
Notice was issued to all the OPs but nobody entered appearance on their behalf, hence proceeded against ex-parte. However, Ms Vinita Advocate appeared on behalf of OP2 on 06.10.2015 and sought adjournment to argue the matter and inspect the file but did not appear on 12.11.2015, the date fixed for arguments and arguments were heard and the matter was reserved for order.
Heard and perused the record.
Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant.
The documents filed by the complainant are the receipt of the mobile hand set of 24.08.2015 alongwith the job sheets of OPs service centre dated 18.11.2013, 29.12.2013, 25.04.2014 and 04.06.2014. Perusal of these job sheets establishes that the mobile set was not working due to which time and again complainant visited the OPs for its repair and lastly it was deposited on 04.06.2014 after which it was not returned to the complainant after its repair despite his several visits to the OP centers.
Thus the complainant has established his case as OPs failed to controvert the same. Hence complainant’s case is deemed to be proved.
Hence holding OPs guilty jointly and severally for deficiency in service and harassment we direct the OPs either to replace the mobile set with a new one or refund the cost of Rs. 3100/- to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the harassment and suffering of the complaint is also granted. We also award Rs. 2000/- as cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest @ 12% per annum is awarded on Rs. 3100/-, the cost of the mobile from the date of order till realisation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced On 29.02.2016
(N.K.Sharma) (Nishat Ahmad Alvi) (Manju Bala Sharma)
President Member Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.