Delhi

North East

CC/480/2014

Rajesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Electronices - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 480/14

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Rajesh Jain

S/o Sh. Mahender Kumar

R/o 1/5472 D, Gali No.17,

Balbir Nagar,

Shahdara,

Delhi-110032                                                              Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1. Vijay Electronics

Through is Proprietor

1/9294, Babarpur Road,

Shahdara,

Delhi-110032

2. Om Mobile Tech Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Proprietor

G-88, LGF, Near Lal Bahadur

Training Centre,

Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019                                                Opposite Parties

 

                                                                        DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03-12-2014

                                                                        DATE OF DECISION      : 27-01-2016

 

Order

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

1. By way of present complaint the complainant has alleged that he purchased a mobile of I-Ball 4.52 from OP1 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,300/-.  OP1 duly issued bill for the same on 17.02.2014.  After purchase OP1 persuaded the complainant to take insurance policy of mobile from OP2, from its shop itself. As per insurance plan, in case any defect in the mobile phone emerges, during the insurance period, OP2 shall rectify the same free of cost.  OP2 issued the said insurance plan namely-cashless protection plan dated 17.02.2014 by receiving Rs.730/- from the complainant.  On 14.08.2014, the said mobile became defective, its touch screen was broken.  Complainant contacted OP1 who called OP2 on the shop itself and handed over the phone to him for removing the defect.  OP2 also issued a receipt dated 14.08.2014 bearing job order No.MPS 5266.  Thereafter complainant is trying to contact OP1 & OP2 on phone, and also, visiting shop of OP1 again and again but OP1 is avoiding the complainant by giving time again and again.  When complainant visited at the address given, by OP2, on its receipt, he found that there is no service centre by the name of OP2 at the given address.  Complainant when contacted on the phone numbers given by OP2, it was told that complainant should contact OP1 only and he will be able to receive the mobile from OP1 itself.  OP1 is assuring the complainant but not giving the mobile back to the complainant after rectification.   Pleading deficiency in services on the part of OP1, complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to either return back the mobile phone after rectification or pay Rs.7,300/-, the price.  Complainant has also prayed for a compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint were sent to both the OPs on the given addresses.  Notice to OP2 received back with postal remarks ‘Left without address’.  Notice to OP1 was served on 15.12.2014 but despite service OP1 did not appear and took any defence.  As complainant was not able to lay hand on any fresh address of OP2 it was requested on his behalf that name of OP2 be deleted from the array of parties.  Accordingly, name of OP2 has been deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 30.01.2015.  Due to non appearance of OP1, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.01.2015.
3. Complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of affidavit alongwith relevant documents.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the record.
5. Annexure C-1 is retail invoice/cash memo issued by OP1, against purchase of I-Ball 4.52 mobile phone by paying Rs.7,300/-.  Annexure C-2 is insurance receipt by the name Cashless Protection Plan dated 17.02.2014, issued by Om Mobile Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. the OP2 by receiving Rs.730/-, as premium.  As per this receipt, the plan was valid for two year against physical damage, liquid damage & theft.   Free pick and drop facility was also assured by OPs to rectify the defect.  Annexure C-3 is a job sheet issued by some MTS service, any time anywhere, dated 14.08.2014 vide job order No.MTS 5266.  This annexure shows that they have received the phone of I-Ball 4.52 from the complainant with touch damaged for repairs but not returned the same.
6. Aforesaid documents reveal that complainant duly purchased I-Ball 4.52 mobile from OP1 against a proper invoice, OP1 got the insurance policy issued, against the mobile, through OP2, from its own shop, mobile became defective and OP1 handed over the defective mobile for repairs to OP2. As per record, OP2 is not available at the given address, OP1 seems gloves in hands with OP2 or with the persons called by OP1 as insurance persons, may be his own persons.  Thus, the liability of rectifying the defect under insurance policy also lies on OP1.  Accordingly, holding OP1 guilty of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices, we direct OP1 to either replace the i-Ball 4.52 mobile phone with new sealed pack phone set or pay Rs.7,300/- -the cost of the mobile with insurance premium of Rs.730/- taken for insurance with 12% per annum interest thereon from the date of invoice.  We also direct OP1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing harassment including litigation cost. As OP2 has been deleted from the array of parties, no order against it.
7. This order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which rate of interest of 12% p.a. shall become 18% p.a., on the amount of Rs. 7,300/- from the date of its receipt till the final payment.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  
9. File be consigned to record room.
10. Announced on   27.01.2016.

           

( N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member