Delhi

East Delhi

CC/825/2015

SULEMAN KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TELE JUNCTION - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.825/15

Mr. SULEMAN KHAN,

R/O 29, MANJBOOR NAGAR, 33

CAMP MANDAWALI IP EXT.,

1.  
2.  

1. TELE JUNCTION

OFF-C-2, SAI CHOWK MADHU VIHAR,

1.  

 

2. MOBILE SHIELD

REG. OFF-43/19, 1^ST FLOOR SEC-14,

CHANDIGARH (PUNJAB) 407134

 

                                                                                                                               ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 23.10.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 17.04.2018

Judgment Passed on: 23.04.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Shri Suleman Khan (Complainant) against Tele Junction (OP-1) and Mobile Shield (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainant had purchased Nokia Handset, Model No. 535DS-Black, on 11.03.2015 for which retail invoice No. 10295 for a sum of Rs.9,500/-was issued. At the time of purchase OP-1 offered “Mobile Phone Protection Plan” by OP-2 for which the premium was paid to OP-2. The said plan was against liquid and accidental damage. It has been stated that in the month of July 2015 the said handset stopped functioning for which the complainant visited OP-1 where he was asked to pay Rs.4900/-. It was further stated that the officer of OP-1 informed complainant that Rs.2000/- would be borne by the insurance and balance of        Rs. 2900/- have to be borne by the complainant. The said amount was paid by the complainant vide invoice no. 484 dated 25.07.2015. The complainant has stated that again, there was network problem in the month of September 2015 for which he paid Rs.308/-. Feeling aggrieved due to non-redressal of his grievance by both OP-1 & OP-2, he has filed the present complaint seeking directions to OPs to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.9,500/-, Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 15.03.2015, Mobile Shield Certificate of insurance dated 11.03.2015, retail invoice no. 753 for payment dated 22.09.2015, Job Sheet dated 13.10.2015, retail invoice issued by OP-1 for Rs.2900/- dated 25.07.2015.

3. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs and reply was filed by OP-1 where in they took the defense that the insurance cover was given to the complainant free of cost. It submitted that in the month of July the complainant had approached service centre with handset, which had physical damage and repair estimate of Rs.4,000/- was prepared. It was further submitted that as the handset was used for more than three months, as per policy the complainant was informed that 50% of the repair expenses shall be borne by the insurance company to which complainant agreed. Out of the amount of Rs.2900/-, Rs.2000/- towards repair and Rs.900/- were charged for tempered glass and cover. Again, after two months the complainant was advised to visit the service centre to get his phone repaired free of cost,  but rather the complainant got it repaired from the local shop by paying Rs.308/-. OP-1 has stated that again the complainant visited the service centre where he was informed that he had to pay Rs. 1,850/- for repairs as the handset was tampered. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. Neither anyone appeared nor any reply was filed on behalf of OP-2, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and have relied on the documents annexed with the complaint.
6. OP-1 examined Shri Kashif Amadi, AR of OP-1 who has reiterated the contents of the reply.
7. We have heard the argument on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and AR of OP-1. The complainant has alleged that his handset was insured by OP-2 by paying the premium. If we look at certificate of insurance it reads the insurance was “free of cost“. However, the complainant has annexed the receipt of Rs.308/- issued by one “Krishna Communication” which shows that the handset was repaired by some unauthorized service centre. However, perusal of the service Job sheet also reveals for “ the product was out of warranty”, once the complainant has got his handset repaired from an unauthorized repair centre. he cannot allege deficiency in services on the part of OP-1 and OP-2. However, OP-1 is only the retailer of the handset and the complainant has failed to show that there was any manufacturing defect in their handset. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                         MEMBER

 

                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                            PRESIDENT