DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.27/2015

Sh. Devesh Kumar

House No.86, Sector-3,

R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022                                 ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

          E-17, Ground Floor,

          Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,

          New Delhi-110024

2.      Anjali

          E-17, Ground Floor,

          Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,

          New Delhi-110024

3.      Simarjeet Singh

E-17, Ground Floor,

          Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,

          New Delhi-110024                                        ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        : 22.01.15       Date of Order                : 02.05.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Briefly put, the complainant purchased Sony Xperia Z1 on 01.01.14 for a sum of Rs.39,599/-. He started facing problems in the touch of the mobile. Phone being in the warranty period the complainant submitted the handset with Technocare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP-1 on 14.08.14. OP-2 and OP-3 seems to be employees of OP-1.
   1. The handset was properly checked and invoice was given to the complainant mentioning that the handset has no physical damage. The phone has some scratches and touch was not working properly.  Copy of the job sheet-cum-receipt is placed on record as Annexure C-2.
   2. After 4-5 days the complainant received a phone call from the OP No.1 informing him that his phone has been repaired and he can collect his handset. The complainant went to collect the handset on 20.08.14 but on receiving his mobile phone he was shocked and found that the screen of the handset had cracked and was damaged. On enquiry regarding the damaged screen OP No.1 informed the complainant that he can deposit the handset again, the same will be repaired under warranty.  The job sheet dated 20.08.14 is placed on record as Annexure C-3 containing the note that the touch was broken from downside so cannot be covered in warranty. Complainant wrote an e-mail on 21.08.14 to OP No.1 regarding the deficiency of services. The complainant was asked to submit his handset again with the OP. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No.1 and a fresh job sheet dated 27.08.14 was given to him where it was written that the handset touch is broken and data will be loss. The complainant was further informed that he will have to pay for broken screen.
   3. Feeling cheated and aggrieved by the callous attitude of the OP-1 the complainant approached this Forum with the following prayer and direction to OP to award the following compensation:

Principal amount Rs.39,599/-

Interest @ 18% from the saidRs.7,128

Compensation and special damage Rs.10,000/-

Cost of lawyer fee/legal expenses Rs.11,000/-

Misc and other charges Rs.3,000/-

Total Rs.70,727/-

2. None came on behalf of the OP to contest the complaint, therefore OP was proceeded exparte on 23.11.15.
3. Complainant has filed evidence way of affidavit and written arguments.
4. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
5. Averments made in the complaint have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.  There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant
6. On perusal of the documents annexed with the complaint it is observed that the first job sheet annexed as Annexure C-2 dated 14.08.14 very clearly shows that the handset when submitted with the OP No.1 was under warranty and the comments made while taking the handset in question by OP No.1 were “Touch is not working proper.” Nowhere in the said job sheet, it is mentioned that there is any physical damage or the touch screen is broken. In the next job sheet dated 20.08.14, OP No.1 has mentioned ‘touch broken from downside so cannot be covered in warranty. So RUR’. Similarly, another job sheet dated 27.08.14 annexed as Annexure C-5 comments mentioned ‘touch broken data will be lost.’ Going through all the job sheets it is observed that when the complainant first handed over his handset to the authorized service station i.e. OP No.1 the only problem recorded in the job sheet is that of touch not working properly.  But the second job sheet mentions that ‘touch is broken from downside.’ It was shocking for the complainant as the phone was still with the OP, the complainant had not taken the phone in between the two dates given in the job sheet.
7. On 27.08.14 after handing over the handset he was informed that the complainant will have to pay for the screen as the screen was damaged and is not covered under warranty.  The same was not acceptable to the complainant and since then phone is lying with the OP No.1. It is very evident that OP was not handed over the handset with the broken screen. Then why should the complainant be burdened with the cost of repair for no fault of his.
8. In view of the above discussion, we hold OP No.1 guilty of deficiency in service and allow the complaint. Accordingly we direct the OP-1 to pay the cost of the mobile phone handset i.e. Rs.39,599/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the complainant  from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Failing which OP No.1 shall become liable to pay the said amount of Rs.39,599/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  Besides this, OP No.1 shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant  including cost of litigation.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 02.05.19