DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.87/2020

Date of Institution: 08.08.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 09.07.2024

Judgment Passed on: 09.07.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Judgment

By this judgment, the Commission would dispose of the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service by OP in not returning the mobile phone given to him for repair.

1. Brief fact stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased a phone Nokia 3.1 Plus from Reliance Retail Ltd. on 24.03.2019 which went out of order on account of some network related issue and was shown to OP who collected the same and gave a visiting card to the complainant showing the receiving/acknowledgment by it and told the complainant to collect after 02-03 days but when after 4 days complainant visited the store to collect his mobile phone the same was not returned and then the complainant left with no option, approached the local police and got a complaint registered by DD No. 42B dated 16.12.2019 but the phone was not returned which is still in the possession of OP and complainant being a consumer, sought the services of OP which were not provided and as such present complaint case is filed against the OP claiming the phone back from OP alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The OP was served but did not appear, rather refused to accept the notice and subsequently OP was served by way of affixation but OP did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence and has confirmed the contents of complaint.
3. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records.
4. Apart from something writing in on the back side of the visiting card of the OP where company’s name is written ‘Nokia’ with date 23.08.2019, no other material facts are mentioned neither any IMEI number is written nor any defect is legible and there is no other document on the record which may show that phone in question was handed over to the OP for repair. Apparently the visiting card of OP cannot be termed as a receipt of the mobile phone by the OP. Even otherwise there is neither any pleading had been made with respect to any consideration paid nor any document is on record to show as to how much consideration was to be paid by the complainant to the OP for repairing the alleged mobile phone. Therefore merely on the basis of one visiting card it cannot be presumed that the complainant has sought some services of the OP with respect to the alleged repair of the alleged phone of complainant. Therefore in absence of any documents complainant has not been able to prove that he is consumer of the OP for consideration and such complaint of the complainant is liable and is hereby dismissed.
5. Copy of the Judgment be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 09.07.2024.