Delhi

North East

CC/87/2017

RASHID KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TALE TALK COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 87/2017

 

In the matter of:

 

		Rashid Khan S/o Shri Chotey Khan A-361, Gali No. 18, Brijpuri, Delhi-110094.		Complainant
		Versus
	1       2       3	Tele Talk Communication C-21, Near Bus Stand Bhajanpura, Delhi 110053   M/s. Micro Max Service Centre D-2, Chand Bagh Main Wazirabad Road Bhajanpura Chowk, Delhi   Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14-A, Phase 2nd, Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		21.03.2017
			RESERVED FOR ORDER:		23.07.2018
			DATE OF DECISION:		24.07.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The complainant had submitted that he had purchased a Micromax E-353 bearing IMEI No. 911457651839904 Mobile Phone manufactured by OP3 company from OP1 retailer on 19.04.2016 for an amount of Rs. 7242/-. However, the above mobile phone started functioning on 27.02.2017 and he had taken the subject mobile phone to the OP2, Service Centre of OP1 where he was told that it would be returned after three hours. However, no job sheet was issued by OP2 to the complainant and after 3 hours OP2 informed the complainant that the display of the above phone would be replaced on 03.03.2017 free of cost the above phone was within warranty period but the display of the mobile phone has not presently available with OP2. It has been reported further that when the complainant reached OP2 on 03.03.2017, OP2 demanded                Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant for replacing display of the mobile phone and when complainant stated that the mobile phone is within the warranty period, OP2 refused to repair it and declined to give any job sheet. When the complainant asked for the complaint register, the same was also refused by OP2. The complainant lodged a complaint to police on no. 100 for needful action but after giving the written complaint to the police, he was also advised that the matter pertains to consumer Forum therefore given the sequence of events which as per complainant clearly show that OP had committed deficiency in service and the complainant had been treated roughly by OPs causing him mental and physical loss, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs that he should be awarded compensation for mental, financial and physical agony alongwith litigation expenses and OPs should repair his mobile phone or in the alternate full cost of mobile set alongwith interest should be refunded by the OPs to complainant.

The complainant has attached copy of letter dated 03.03.2017 addressed to S.H.O., P.S. Gokul Puri, a copy of bill No. 1037 dated 19.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 7242/- towards the purchase of mobile phone from OP1 wherein it has been clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions that OP1 will not be responsible for any shortage/ damages notified after delivery.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 21.03.2017 for appearance before the Forum on 18.4.2017 and the same was delivered to all the OPs. Despite service effected, OP1 & OP2 didn’t appear before Forum and as such the OP1 & OP2 were proceeded against             ex- parte vide order dated on 17.05.2017. OP3 appeared on the given date but did not file its written statement and sought time for filing the same. However on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.05.2017, OP3 failed to appear despite several calls and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte. OP3 appeared on the same date after post lunch and filed written statement but the same was struck off the record as the defence was already closed.   
3. Complainant has filed Ex parte affidavit of evidence and written arguments wherein most of the points were reiterated as mentioned in his complaint.
4. We have heard oral arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the documentary evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions. In the absence of any rebuttal by the OPs, to the allegation leveled by the complainant against the OPs, on the basis of documents filed and evidence adduced by the complainant, a case of deficiency of service on the part of OPs is made out and as such we are of the considered view that OP1, OP2 & OP3 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service. We accordingly direct the OPs jointly and severally as dealer, service centre and manufacturer (in business relationship with each other) to refund the amount of Rs. 7242/- towards the purchase of mobile phone. In addition of above, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards the compensation for mental, physical and financial agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation charge is also payable to complainant by all OPs jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 9% interest shall also be payable by the OPs to the complainant on the total awarded amount i.e. 12,242/- from the date of institution of this case till the date of realization.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 24.07.2018)     

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member