Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/783

Shisher - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mobile Solution - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2014

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(WEST)

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

150-151, COMMUNITY CENTER, C BLOCK, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058.

        Date of institution: 27.11.14

Case. No.783 /2014                                                                                                                                               Date of order 6.06.2016

In the matter of

Shisher, S/o Sh. Attar Singh, Plot No.106/107,

Flat No.D-3, Som Bazar, Vipin Garden,

Dwarka Mod, New Delhi-59.                                                                                               COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

The Mobile solution,

Shop No.E-26, Milap Nagar,

Near Reliance Fresh, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-59.                                                                                                            OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

 

My Mobile Care Service Pvt. Ltd., 

W.Z.-109,Street No.1,

Sadh Nagar, Palam,

New Delhi.                                                                                                      OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

 

Micromax House,

Plot No.90B,  Sector 18,

Gurgaon,  122015.                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3.

 

R.S. BAGRI ( PRESIDENT ),

O R D E R

                        Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased  one handset Micromax A-90s  with IMEI No. 911242350081564  from The  Mobile Solution Opposite Party No.1 for sale consideration of Rs.12,700/- vide invoice No.2699 dated 6.12.12.  The complainant on the same day also insured  his mobile handset with My  Mobile Care Service, Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No.2   from shop of Opposite Party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1000/- for two years.  The mobile handset developed some fault and was deposited with Opposite PartyNo.2  for repairs.  The Opposite Party No.2 issued job sheet No.5575  dated 16.7.14.   The complainant inquired about status of the mobile handset and requested to return the same.   But despite several visits to Opposite Party No. 2 the handset is not repaired and returned by the Opposite Party No.2 till today.   Hence, the present complaint for direction to the opposite parties to repair  the handset. 

 

-2-

Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.   Therefore, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.1.16 and   Opposite Party No.3  was proceeded against  exparte vide ordear dataed 17.5.16.  

 

When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence,he filed his affidavit  dataed 17.5.16 and relied upon invoice No. 2699 dated   6.12.12, job sheet No.5575  dated 16.7.14and card of extended service warranty of two years issued by Opposite Party No.2 .   He has once again  narrated the facts of the complaint  in the affidavit dated 17.5.16.  He deposed that the handset was  manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 and  sold to him with warranty of one year.  He further deposed that the mobile handset was insured for repairs  with Opposite Party No.2 on payment of Rs.1000/-for two years.   .  The mobile handset developed fault and was given for repairs to Opposite Party No.2.  They did not return the mobile handset till today  

 

From the perusal of the invoice dated 6.12.12, warranty card  and job sheet No.5575  dated 16.7.14,  it reveals that the complainant purchased mobile handset  Micromax A-90s with IMEI No. 9111242350081564 for sale considaeration of Rs.12,700/- .  The Opposite Party No.2 insured the mobile for repairs for two years.   The handset was given for repairs to Opposite Party No.2  But the same not returned  till today  

 

We have heard complainant in person and gone through  the complaint, affidavit dated  17.5.16 and the documents placed on record carefully and thoroughly.  

 

The version of the complainant has  remained unrebutted and unchallenged.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence produced by him.  The complainant from the unrebutted affidavit, invoice , jobsheet and  insurance card  has been able to show  that on 6.12.12 he purchased one mobile handset Micromax  A-90s IMEI No. 9111242350081564 from Opposite Party No.1  for Rs.12,700/-.  The handset was insured for extended warranty of repairs for  two years with Opposite Party No.2.  The handset developed  fault .  Therefore, the complainant deposited the mobile handset with Opposite Party No.2 for repairs within warranty.   But they did not repair and return the handset till today. The complaint has suffered loss of mobile handset.  The

-3-

complainant is also  deprived of his valueable right to use the mobile handset.    Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 .The  Opposite party No.2  is liable to repair the handset at their own cost.

 

In light of above discussion and observations , the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed.  The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to  repair the moblie handset,  at their own cost, within 15 days from the recepit of order and in default of repair in time to pay a sum of Rs.12,700/- cost of mobile handet with interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realisation of  the amount. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay  compensation of  Rs.11,000/- for mental agony, pain  and harrassment  suffered by the complainant and for loss of use of mobile handset  for almost two years .   

Order pronounced on   : 06.06.2016

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• File be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT