Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/440

Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Dai Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

ShriGurvinder Singh M/S N.D. Traders - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 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: 03.07.2015

Complaint Case. No.440/15                                                      Date of order:   19.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Dai Ram R/O B-475, Hospital Colony, NearManchanda Medicos, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                 Complainant

VERSUS

ShriGurvinder Singh M/S N.D. Traders, Spice Authorized Service Centre, B-11, JyotiShikhar building, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058            Opposite party-1

ShriPradeepJain(M.D.) Karbonn imported and marketing,Jaina marketing and associates D-170, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi-110020                        Opposite Party-2

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

               Briefly  facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant ShriKrishan Kumar are that he purchased one mobile hand set of make“Karbonn S9” with IMEI no. 911333000429970 on 19.10.2014 from reliance retail ltd. JanakPuri New Delhi manufactured by opposite party no.2. The mobile handset developed fault within six months of purchase of the mobile handset. The complainant deposited the handset with the authorized service centrethe opposite party no.1 for repairs within warranty. The opposite party no.1 told the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset after 10 days. But when the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 the mobile handset was not repaired and the opposite party no.1 told to come again. The mobile handset was not repaired even after 38 days so the complainant called the company. They told the complainant that his phone is repaired on 29.06.2015 and he can collect the same from service centreJanakPurithe opposite party no.1. When the complainant visited the opposite party no.1 to collect the repaired handset they told him that the mobile handset is not repaired. The opposite party no.1is not giving any satisfactory reply about the status of his mobile handset. Hence the present complaint fordirections to theopposite parties to repair the mobile handset and pay compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

               Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties . None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.05.2016. The opposite party no.2 filed reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant is frivolous,vexations, devoid of merits and is an abuse of process of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of theopposite parties. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On meritsthe opposite party no.2 asserted that the mobile handset has no manufacturing defect as the complainant has used the handset for almost six months without any problem. However if any fault is in the mobile handset it may be due to mishandling by the complainant. The opposite party no.2 further asserted that the warranty clause covers mobile handset under normal use and service and there is no coverage under warranty clause as claimed by the complainant.The opposite party no.2 made further averments that the allegations of the complainantare not supported by any document and there is no cause of action against them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

               The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no.2controverting  the stand taken by the the opposite party no.2 and once again  reiterating his stand taken in the complaint.

               When the parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint and relied upon invoice dated 19.10.2014 and jobsheet no. KJASPDL146515K1427 dated 26.05.2015. The opposite party no.2 failed to file evidence and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.04.2017.

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

               The complainant from unrebutted and unchallenged  affidavit and documents has been able to show that he has purchased one mobile handset of make “Karbonn S9” with IMEI no. 911333000429970 on 19.10.2014 from reliance retail ltd. JanakPuri New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs.10,722/-.  The handset was given for repairs on 26.05.2016 within warranty to the opposite party no.1 authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2. The mobile handset is neither repaired nor returned to the complainanttill today. The version of the opposite party no.2 that the handset of the complainantis not covered under warranty and does not have any manufacturing defect is not supported by any document or evidence. However the complainant has been able to prove that the mobile handset was given for repairs within warranty and same was not repaired or returned by the opposite parties. There is negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1 authorized service Centre ofthe opposite party no.2. The complainant suffered loss of mobile handset. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of mobile handset and pay compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment.

In light of above discussion and observations we direct theopposite parties no.1 and 2 to refund Rs.10,722/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till actual realization and Rs.1,000/- for compensation for mental pain,agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on :.05.2017

• 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)                                                                          (R.S.  BAGRI)

MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT