Delhi

North East

CC/329/2014

Naeemuddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 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.329 of 2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Naeemuddin S/o Mainuddin R/o B-316, Gali No. 5, Kabir Nagar, Delhi.	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.     3.	Wizard Digitek Computers Pvt Ltd C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.   Paladin System Pvt Ltd 27/15, Ashok Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi.   HTC India Pvt Ltd G4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	26.08.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	24.07.2017

 

N.K.Sharma,President:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint complainant purchased a mobile of OP3 make from OP1 on 26.05.2014 against payment of Rs. 22,800/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as sale consideration thereof. On the persuasion of OP1 complainant also got the mobile insured with OP2 by paying Rs. 2,280/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Eighty only) against its offer of protection-cum-insurance plan on the shop of OP1 itself. The said protection plan was for two years.
2. On 20.06.2014 the mobile was not working at all. Complaint whereof was made by complainant to the OPs. In pursuance of complaint employee of OP2 came at complainant residence and collected the phone on 21.06.2014. OP2 informed that there is liquid damage in mobile which complainant denied and requested to get the damaged set replaced with new mobile. OP2 refused to replace the same but assured the complainant that the defective mobile shall be delivered to him after repairs within 3 working days. When, after making a number of calls, OP2 came to complainant’s place on 2.7.2014, with the mobile in question, complainant found the same not working. Therefore, refused to take the mobile. Therefore, OP2 took away the mobile with assurance that in case mobile is not repaired the entire cost of the same shall be refunded to complainant.
3. Now, even after making a number of calls at service centre of OP2 there is no satisfactory reply from their side and it has became more than 60 days that OP has not returned the mobile after repairs. As per insurance policy even liquid damage was insured. Complainant being entitled to get refund of entire cost of the mobile being Rs. 22,800/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only), served the respondents with notice dated 4.8.2014, requiring refund of the cost, with interest thereon @18% per annum from the date of purchase. Notice was duly served but OPs neither approached complainant nor refunded the amount. This shows dishonest intention of the OPs to not pay the cost of mobile and amounts to deficiency in service. OPs are guilty for adopting unfair trade practice also.
4. Complainant has prayed for grant of directions to respondents to pay Rs. 22,800/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) with interest thereon @18 % from 26.08.2014-the date mobile was purchased on. Complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only).
5. All the OPs were served but only OP2 put its appearance through his manager Shri Vikram Singh Rathor. While nobody appeared on behalf of OP1 & OP3. OP2 too neither appeared thereafter nor filed its reply. Hence, vide order 3.12.14 all the OPs were proceeded against Ex parte.
6. Complainant filed his affidavit of evidence alongwith relevant documents.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Documents exhibit CW1/1 an Invoice No. 26664 shows that complainant purchased the mobile by paying Rs. 22,800/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) on 26.05.2014. Exhibit CW1/2 is the certificate of insurance issued by OP2 which shows that this protection plan was for two years. Exhibit CW1/3-copy of job sheet issued on behalf of OP2. Going through all these documents we find that complainant duly purchased mobile of OP3 make being model No. HTC Desire 700 vide IMEI No. 351754060885198 on 26.05.2014 from OP1 vide its invoice no. 26664. This mobile was duly insured by M/s. Home Serve the principal of OP2. Complainant paid Rs. 2,280/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred Eighty only) for this insurance. Mobile was duly received by OP2 for repairs by issuing job sheet on 21.6.2014.
9. On the basis of above said findings complainant has successfully proved his case by putting all evidences in support of all his contentions in the complaint while OPs by not appearing and contesting complaint failed to controvert the same. Thus, the case of the complainant is deemed to be proved. Accordingly we find OP1 responsible for insuring mobile at its shop in the name of OP2. We also find OP2 liable for not honoring the terms of policy by not repairing the mobile or giving refund of cost of the mobile if the same was not repairable.
10. Therefore, we hold OP1 & OP2 guilty for deficiency in service. In respect of OP3 as there was no violation of warranty conditions, it is not guilty for the same. Accordingly, we direct OP1 & OP2 jointly and severally to pay to complainant

1. a sum of Rs. 22,800/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) cost of the mobile phone ; and
2. compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only); and
3. litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only)

11. This order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the receipt hereof. Failing which cost of the mobile shall be chargeable with interest thereon @ 12 % p.a. from the date of purchased till final compliance of this order.   
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party, free of cost, as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  24.07.2017)          

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member