Delhi

North East

CC/38/2015

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tele Talk Communication - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 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. 38/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Prem Singh S/o Late Bhagmal Singh R/o A-13, Street No.2, Kamal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94.	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Tele Talk Communication (Dealer) C-21,Near Bus Stand, Bhajanpura,Delhi-93   M/s Shri Krishna Com (Service Centre) A-10, Kabir Nagar, Opposite Goyal Gadi wala, Near Shiv Mandir,Shahdara,Delhi-94	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

28.01.2015 03.04.2018 12.04.2018

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone Micromax model No. 67 IMEI No. 911328102733709 from Shri Ravi Karan Singh vide sale agreement dated 08.03.2014 who had purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 5,800/ vide bill No. 19804 From OP1 in his name. It was mentioned in the sale agreement that after the sale of the said mobile to the complainant, every right regarding the mobile is automatically transferred to him such as repair, resale or other activities connected with this mobile in future. The above mobile was under mobile phone protection plan for 2 years vide invoice No. 40687 dated 05.02.2014 which was valid upto 04.02.2016 from M/s Smart Mobile Total Solution. It is submitted by the complainant that the above mobile was not getting charged and he showed it to OP2 on 14.08.2014, where he was told that Rs. 300/- would be charged for repair and Rs. 550/- for change of battery. When the complainant stated that the mobile and battery is within the two years guarantee period, it was not agreed to/ accepted by the OP and the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 300/- + Rs. 550/-  i.e. Rs. 850/- for repair of above mobile and despite paying the amount, the mobile was delivered to the complainant by OP2 on 14^th October 2014 i.e. after two months. The complainant has stated that the above mobile again went out of order on 17.10.2014 and it was told by OP2 after checking that the said battery is out of order and it cannot be replaced. The complainant has stated that he had to face problems due to defective mobile set from 14.08.2014 to 14.10.2014 and since he is working as SDO in MTNL where he requires the mobile consistently and therefore he had to purchase another mobile for which the complainant vide the present complaint has prayed for compensation from the OPs in addition to compensation for wastage of time, harassment, legal expenses and the complainant should be provided another mobile set by the OP. Further, the complainant has desired to know as to why Rs. 850/- were charged by the OP when the above mobile set was under guarantee of two years. The complainant has attached the copy of bill no. 796 dated 14.10.2014 for an amount of Rs. 850/- charged from him by OP2. Further a copy of jobsheet request no. R-1408PDL 111568280 dated 14.08.2014 showing no charging has been attached. A copy of sale agreement between Shri Ravi Karan Singh and Prem Singh(complainant) dated 08.03.2014 has also been attached in support of contention made by the complainant.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 16.03.2015 for appearance on 06.04.2015. While OP1 was served on 23.03.2015, the address of OP2 was not found by postal authorities on 18.03.2015. OP2 was again sent the notice to appear by the registered post on complete address but he did not appear and as such both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.
3. Ex- parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he reiterated the points made in his complaint.
4. Written arguments were filed by the complainant.
5. We have heard the oral arguments addressed by the complainant and gone through the documentary evidence submitted by him in favour of his contentions.

In the absence of rebuttal by the OPs, the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs jointly and severally and therefore we hold both OPs jointly and severally guilty of deficiency of service in as much as they were unjustified in charging Rs. 850/- to the complainant towards repair of mobile and change of battery thereof while the phone was within the warranty period and therefore direct both the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5800/- towards cost of mobile + Rs. 850/- towards cost of repair and change of battery wrongfully charged by OP2 from complainant thereby totaling Rs. 6,650/- to the complainant. We further award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant payable by the OPs jointly and severally. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  12.04.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member