| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/34/14 Date of Institution:- 23.01.2014 Order Reserved on:- 10.05.2024 Date of Decision:- 05.06.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Mr. David Langsuanmung Sir 91 A, Prateek Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi .….. Complainant VERSUS - The Mobile Store
Shop No.11, Plot No.5, H Block Market SaritaVihar, New Delhi – 110076 - The Mobile Store Limited
Unit#501 & 502, Kohinoor City, Kirol Road, Off LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai - 400070 ……Opposite Parties Per Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member - Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc LT15i mobile phone from the VasantKunj store of OP-2. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.25,934/- and an invoice no.7604/4378103 dated 25.10.2011 was issued to him. The complainant also purchased the extended warranty of his mobile phone vide invoice no.7606/4378338.
- The complainant alleges that his phone began suffering from an Auto Restart Defect, and since the handset was within the warranty period, the complainant approached the VasantKunj store of the OP from where he had purchased his phone to have it repaired.
- The complainant alleges that the OP executives refused to accept his handset and asked him to deposit the same at OP-1,i.e. the SaritaVihar service centre of OP-2, on 24.10.2013. He was told that his phone would be repaired within 15 days and also issued a job sheet towards the repair.
- When the complainant contacted OP-1 after two weeks, he was informed that the warranty of his mobile had expired in their custody. Further, since they had not made a timely entry in the system, their system was no longer accepting the entry towards the complainant's handset, so they could not repair it. The complainant was asked to speak to one Mr. Shaileshat the OP-2 office in Mumbai to resolve his issue.
- When the complainant spoke to Mr. Shailesh at the Mumbai office, he was told no request had been made by the OP-1 staff regarding the repair request. The complainant again went back to OP-1. The OP executive admitted that no request had been sent to OP-2 as the store manager was unavailable. Despite repeatedly following up with the OPs, the complainant was only given lame excuses, citing pending approvals as the reason for the delay.
- The complainant ran from pillar to post to get his phone repaired; however, no action was taken by the OP to resolve his grievance. Thereafter, the complainant received a call in the first week of December, as stated by him in his complaint, wherein he was informed that his handset, which was being sent to Ahamdabad for repair,had been lost by the OP while in transit. The OP offered a settlementcompensation of Rs.4914/-, which the complainant rejected.
- He, thus, filed the present complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency of service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He seeks direction to the OPs to pay the original purchase price of the handset, which was lost by them, Rs.25,000/- towards physical and mental agony suffered by him, Rs.1000/- towards efforts made by him to communicate with the OPs and cost of the petition.
- On notice, the OPs filed their reply admitting that the complainant purchased a mobile handset on 25.10.2011, paying Rs.25934/- for the same and an extended warranty of two years. The OP states that the complainant's mobile worked adequately for two years till 24.10.2013, when he submitted his phone for repair at the OP-1 service centre at SaritaVihar.
- Admitting to having lost the complainant's used mobile phone that had been deposited by the complainant to OP-1 while it was in transit, the OPs state that as a goodwill gesture, the OPs on 30.01.2014 offered an upgraded mobile phone, Sony Xperia C, which had better specification than his lost and used phone and had the market price of Rs.21,940/-. The complainant refused the said offer and instead filed the present complaint.
- The complainant filed the rejoinder and affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The OPs filed the affidavit of Mr. Mohit Kumar, AR, who also repeated the statements made in the reply filed by the OPs.Written arguments were filed by the complainant.
- Thereafter, neither party appeared before this Forum to address oral arguments despite several opportunities, and hence, we felt it prudent to reserve the present complaint based on material on record due to its long pendency.We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the complaint and perused the documents filed by the contesting parties.
- We find that the complainant purchased a Sony Ericsson Xperia ArcLT15i mobile phone from the OP store at VasantKunjon 25.10.2011. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.25,934/- towards the same. He also purchased an extended warranty of two years for his mobile on the same date.
- After almost two years, the complainant found issues with his phone, such as an auto-restart defect with his phone. He submitted his phonefor repair to OP-1 on 24.10.2013. He was informed that his phone would be repaired within 15 days, and a job sheet was issued to him dated 24.10.2013, a copy of which is annexed on page no.6 of his complaint. At the time of depositing the phone, the complainant's mobile handset was under the extended warranty,which was to expire on the same day.
- The complainant states that his phone was not repaired despite being submitted on time. Instead, he was told that the OP-1 executive could not make a timely entry towards the repair of his mobile handset, and the system was no longer accepting the entry as the warranty had expired while the phone was in the custodyofOP-1.
- By December 2013, the complainant had still not received his repaired mobile, which he was informed was being sent to Ahmedabad for repair. But during transit his mobile was lost by the OP. The OP offered Rs.4914/- as compensation for his lost mobile, which the complainant refused and filed the present complaint before this Forum.
- The OPs, in their affidavit filed to be read in evidence, admit to having lost the complainant's mobile, which was deposited at their service centre, i.e. OP-1 on 24.10.2013, within extended warranty. This admission by the OPs,coupled with the fact that the OPs were unable to repair the complainant's mobile, is enough to prove the complainant's case and is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- In their affidavit, the OP also stated that they were willing to give the complainant an upgraded phone worth Rs.21940/- for the lost mobile.Hence, allowing the complaint, we direct the OPs to jointly and severally pay the complainant a sum of Rs.21,940/- towards theused and lost mobile. The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant, inclusive of litigation cost.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 05.06.2024.
| |
