Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/238

Jitender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice retail ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Mar 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: 28.03.2016

Complaint Case. No. 238/16                                                         Date of order: 20.03.2017  

IN  MATTER OF

Jitender, W-153/A-33, B-58, Rama Road, New Delhi-110015                                                                                                                                                                                                  Complainant

VERSUS

Spice Retail Ltd. G-1, Shivlok House, Plot no. A-2, Nazafgarh Road, Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Opposite party no. 1

Care Zone, Authorised service centre, A-16, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015

                                                                                                                                    Opposite party no. 2

Samsung India Electronics Pvt ltd (Head Office) 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Sector 43, Gurgaon -122002          

Opposite party no. 3

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT  

            The brief facts for the disposal of the present complaint are that Shri Jitender named above herein after referred as the complainant purchased one mobile handset “Samsung Galaxy A-8” from spice retail Limited herein after referred as opposite party no. 1 on 20.01.2016.  On 20.02.2016 the mobile handset developed fault due to non-working of charger and OTG cable. The mobile handset was deposited with care zone authorized service center herein after referred as opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. 4210005641 dated 27.02.2016. The handset was repaired on same day but not to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again deposited the handset with opposite party no. 2 on 29.02.2016 vide job sheet no. 4210088771. Opposite party no. 2 told him to collect the repaired handset within 7 days. The complainant visited opposite party no. 2 after 7 days. But he was again told to come after some time. The complainant several times inquired about the status of his mobile handset. But with no results. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,990/- cost of mobile handset and pay compensation for mental and physical harassment.

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties. Therefore, they are proceeded ex-parte vide order 18.05.2010.  

            When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit he filed affidavit dated 28.02.2017 stating the facts of the complaint and relied upon copy of  invoice no. 107764117 dated 20.01.2016 and copy of job sheets dated 27.02.2016 and 29.02.2016.

            From the perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant and affidavit it reveals that the complainant purchased mobile handset of make “Samsung Galaxy A8” for sum of Rs.25,990/- cost of mobile handset from opposite party no. 1 on 20.01.2016 manufactured by opposite party no. 3. The mobile handset developed some fault and was given to opposite party no.2 for repairs within warranty on 27.02.2016. But till today the handset is not repaired or returned.

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

            The version and affidavit of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged . There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged version of the complainant. The complainant from the affidavit and documents has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset of make and model “Samsung galaxy A8” from opposite party no. 1 manufactured by opposite party no.3. The mobile handset developed some fault and was given for repairs to opposite party no. 2. But the same is neither repaired nor returned by opposite party no. 2. The complainant has suffered loss of mobile handset. He is also deprived to use the mobile handset. Hence opposite party no. 2 is negligent and there is deficiency in service on their part. Opposite party no. 2 is authorized service center of opposite party no. 3.  Therefore, opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of mobile handset and pay compensation.

            In view of above discussion and observations we direct opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 25,990/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization of the amount and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 20.03.2017

• 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