Delhi

North East

CC/416/2015

Raj Kr. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tridev Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2017

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.416 of 2017

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma R/o V-1699, Gali No. 5 Vijay Park, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	M/s Tridev Enterprises D-26, Delhi Darbar Road Near Dispensary Chowk, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053   M/s Smart Mobile Total Solution C-2/15 Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	20.10.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	25.07.2017

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint complainant purchased a mobile of Samsung make Model – Note-3 IMEI No. 351669067034095 from OP1 for a sum of Rs. 26,500/- on 22.09.2014. This mobile was purchased vide invoice no. 5110 issued by OP1. This mobile was also insured by OP1 for which it charged Rs. 2,650/- on behalf of OP2 who issued the insurance certificate, countersigned by OP1 itself.  The insurance was for a period of two years.
2. Since the very beginning mobile was defective which after some time stopped suddenly and became dead. Complainant approached OP1 who told him to go to OP2 as per address mentioned on the bill. On visit to the address of OP2, given in the bill complainant was shocked to find out that there was no such service centre. Again complainant approached OP1 who assured complainant that it will get the mobile repaired within 7 days. Thereafter, complainant visited OP1 but OP1 didn’t deliver the mobile back and even after visiting so many times there was no satisfactory reply on behalf of OP. Now, about a month has passed but phone has not yet been delivered by OP who is harassing the complainant. Pleading conduct of OP illegal uncalled, unwarranted leading to extreme mental agony to him from OP1 who has sold a defective mobile phone to him and not provided service, complainant had prayed for grant of directions to OP for refund of cost of the mobile being Rs. 26,500/- to the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 13,000/- litigation cost.
3. OP1 was served on 11.6.2016 and OP2 on 13.01.2016 but none of OPs, put their respective appearances before this Forum, and contested the complaint, even after providing two opportunities and vide order dated 17.3.16 both the OPs were proceeded against ex parte.
4. Complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence alongwith relevant documents.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. Going through the documents filed by complainant i.e. invoice dated 22.9.14 issued by OP1 as well as insurance certificate dated 22.9.14 issued by OP2, it is observed that complainant duly purchased Samsung Mobile Note-3 Neo of black color vide IMEI No. 351669067034095 against payment of Rs. 26,500/- to OP1. It is also observed that the certificate of insurance was issued by OP2 under the seal of OP1, thereby insuring the mobile on 22.9.2014 against accidental / liquid damage valid from 22.9.14 to 21.9.16. For this insurance OPs have received Rs. 2,650/-. However, with respect to complainant contentions, of making complaint to OP1 and depositing mobile with it for repairs, there is no document on record supporting this contention but a duly sworn affidavit alongwith complaint.
7. On the basis of above said findings complainant has successfully proved his case of purchasing the mobile aforesaid from OP1 and getting insurance of the mobile from OP2 through OP1. Though there is no document on record to, verify complainant’s contention of making complaint to OP1, try to locate OP2, deposit mobile for repair with OP1 and not getting the mobile back after repairs from OP1. But duly sworn affidavit in support of his complaint verify all these facts. On the other hand by not contesting the case even after due service on both of them the OPs have failed to controvert the evidence laid by the complainant or to challenge aforesaid affidavit of evidence. Therefore, the case of the complainant is deemed to be proved.
8. In the facts and circumstances as above we come to the conclusion that OP1 had sold a defective mobile to complainant. Not only this OP1 also persuaded complainant to insured the said mobile with OP2 without having any intention to follow the terms of the insurance. Even after complaint of the defect and getting the mobile deposited with itself OP1 failed to deliver back the mobile after repairs which is gross deficiency on its past. With respect to OP2 though it has issued a certificate of insurance of the mobile in question but didn’t honour the insurance policy by following terms and conditions thereof.
9. Therefore, both the OPs are guilty for adopting unfair trade practice as well as for gross deficiency in service. Thus, we direct both the OPs jointly and severally to

(i)Deliver the mobile in question back after repairs, to the satisfaction of complainant, without charging anything. Failing which to refund to the complainant cost of the mobile being Rs. 26,500/-with interest thereon @12% per annum from the date of purchase till final compliance of this order; and 

(ii)To pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) ; and

(iii)To pay litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only)

to the complainant.

10. This order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the receipt hereof. Failing which rate of interest on the cost of mobile shall be charged @15% per annum.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 25.07.2017)           

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member