Delhi

North East

CC/87/2016

Sh. Naresh Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Y.K. Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2018

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. 87/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh R/o House No. 47, Street No.2, Phase-7 Shiv Vihar, Karavl Nagar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.         3.	Y.K.Telecom R/o C-81/2, Main Bhajanpura Bus Stop Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53.   Service Centre R/o Gurukul Technology Shop No. F-671, main Wazirabad Road, Khajuri Khaas, Delhi-94.   Intex D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-2, New Delhi-20.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

18.03.2016 05.04.2018 06.04.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. It has been stated by the complainant that he had purchased a mobile phone Intex Aqua Star -2 bearing IMEI                                             No. 911430503952175 from M/s Y.K. Telecom on 10.06.2015 for a sum of Rs. 6,200/-. The complainant stated that the said mobile set got out of order after 6 months within warranty period and started giving charging store problem. On 30.01.2016 complainant approached service centre of OP2 where it was deposited vide jobsheet No. 601306978020T001. The above mobile set was returned by OP2 on 03.02.2016 stating that it is in order. But the complainant found that the said mobile phone was not repaired and as such he deposited the same again to OP2 on the same date vide jobsheet No. 602036978034T001 thereafter OP2 called the complainant and stated that the said mobile phone now is in order but when the complainant checked the same, it was found in the same condition. The complainant stated that since the problem in the said mobile phone was not understood by the OP2, the original battery of the said mobile was broken and damaged by OP2 which OP2 then asked the complainant to change. As such the complainant had to purchase a new battery Aqua Star -2 1400 MH from OP2 for Rs. 598/-. However it did not solve the charging problem of the subject mobile even after installing the new battery. Thereafter OP2 stated that the motherboard of the said mobile phone is out of order and it is due to liquid damage. For correcting the same, there would be charges despite mobile phone being in warranty. The above mobile was opened twice or thrice by OP2 due to which OP2 misplace the screw of the mobile. Further the complainant has stated that the behavior of OP2 was not good towards him. On 07.03.2016 the complainant called customer care twice at 2:03PM and 5:20 PM where the customer care of OP assured the complainant that the mobile phone would be repaired. On 08.03.2016 at 1:59 PM there was a call from customer care wherein he was given a satisfactory assurance. However, there was no call from customer care after words. On 09.03.2016, the complainant sent a written complaint vide e-mail to OP3 but there was no reply. It has been stated by the complainant that he had to waste a lot of time in taking rounds of the service centre and he had to take many leaves from job on this account. Keeping in view the above, the complainant, vide the present complaint had requested that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of mobile being Rs. 6,200/-, Rs. 15,000/- for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation charges to him.

The complainant annexed a copy of e-mail dated 9^th March 2016 written to Intex care – OP3, copy of bill No. 1453 dated 10.06.2015 from M/s Y.K. Telecom amounting to Rs. 6,200/- towards the purchase of above mobile phone, copy of payment memo serial No. 612 dated 5^th March 2016 for an amount of Rs. 598/- towards purchase of new battery, copy of warranty card for a period of 12 months from date of purchase or 15 months from manufacturing date of corresponding IMEI No. of the unit, which ever earlier is warranted, against defect in material of workmanship. Further it has been stated that in case of a defect, Intex Technologies (India) Ltd undertakes to get the set repaired free of charge through its authorized Intex Care Partner (ICP) or service dealer subject to conditions.

2. Notice was issued upon the OPs 13.04.2016 and the same was delivered to OP1 and OP2 on 21.04.2016 and OP3 on 19.04.2016 respectively. OP2 and OP3 filed its written statement on 11.07.2016 where OP2 and OP3 take plea that the above mobile set was purchased in good condition and after having full satisfaction with the said handset and the complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action just to extract money in the form of compensation. Further it has been stated by OP2 and OP3 that the said handset was repaired to complainant’s satisfaction free of cost under warranty and defective parts were replaced but the complainant out of nefarious intention has filed recurring complaint’s and this complaint before this Forum. It has been further stated by the OPs that in Shivprasad Paper Industries Vs Senior Machinery Company I (2006) CPJ 92 (NC) it has been held that “it is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be order to be replaced if can be repaired”. Therefore OP2 and OP3 prayed before this Forum for dismissal of the present complaint with cost due to being devoid of merits.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein he stated that he had sent his problem to the service centre as well as Intex on e-mail but there was no satisfactory reply and as such he had to lodge the present complaint. Further he had submitted the relevant evidence and his mobile battery was also replaced on payment. The motherboard of the mobile phone has been told to be out of order due to liquid damage and he is being charged for the repair of the mobile phone despite being in warranty.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP2 and OP3 wherein it was stated that he present complaint has been filed without any cause of action and the same is liable to be dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action. However, OP2 and OP3 did not appear after filing evidence and failed to file written arguments despite being given several opportunities and as such their right to file written arguments and address orally stood close and they were proceeded against ex-parte due to absence and non-compliance.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated the points made in his complaint.
6. Written arguments were filed by the complainant.
7. We have heard the oral arguments by the complainant and also gone through the documentary evidence filed by the complainant in its case.

In the wake of evasive denial by OP2 and OP3 in their written statement and lame defence taken therein in which they have failed to dispel / negate the allegation of faulty services/ deficiency in service and defective repairs in the subject handset and extracting money from the complainant despite the subject mobile being covered under warranty, and no proper rebuttal by the OPs by way of arguments which eventually were proceeded against Ex-parte, the complainant has been able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore we direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund sum of Rs. 6,200/- the cost the mobile phone, to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

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 06.04.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member