CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.767/2008
MD. Q.A. AHMAD
C-7, TOP FLOOR, JOGABAI EXTENSION,
JAMIA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110025
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- THE MANAGER
CUSTOMER CARE – FLY,
A-19, B-1, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, BADARPUR, NEW DELHI-110044
- THE MANAGER
MERIDIAN MOBILE PVT. LTD.,
H-12, MERIDIAN HOUSE,
GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 22.09.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of complainant is that on 26.11.07 he purchased a mobile cell phone for Rs.4,200/- from Intouch Communication. OP-2 is the manufacturer and OP-1 is the authorised service centre. The said phone was having warranty of one year which was duly provided by OP-2. It is stated that from the very beginning the said phone was not upto the mark like quick discharge of battery, keys not working properly, unclear voice etc. Almost after seven months, the said phone became dead. Complainant approached seller who directed him to go to OP-1 i.e. authorised service centre of OP-2. The phone was handed over to OP-1 who asked him to come after three weeks to take the repaired phone and also issued a job card to complainant. After three weeks complaint went to the OP-1 to take the phone but he was told that the phone has been sent to Mumbai office for repair. When complainant objected to their irresponsible behaviour he was insulted by the representative of OP-1 for which he had also lodged a complaint at the Badar Pur Police station. Complainant again visited OP-1 after two months and he was told that the phone is out of warranty and complainant has to bear the repair cost. Thereafter complainant told OP-1 that when the phone was handed over to them the same was well within the warranty period. Thereafter complainant left the premises without phone as the same was not handed over. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. complainant has prayed for the refund cost of phone i.e. Rs.4,200/- with 18% interest plus Rs.70,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP-1 in the reply took the plea that it is only service centre and provides the services for the repair of the goods and not personally liable for any fault of complainant. It is stated that OP-1 after inspecting the said phone, came to the conclusion that the said phone was found water logged and due to this reason the warranty for this mobile phone got ended. It is the policy and terms and conditions of all the prevalent mobile companies that if the mobile set was found water logged then the warranty gets discontinued. It is stated that when complainant visited the office of OP-1, the said mobile was handed over to him and he was asked to pay Rs.800/- for expenses on repair of the said mobile but he handed over the phone back to OP-1 and told that he had not brought any money with him and will take the said phone after paying the necessary charges tomorrow. OP-1 called numerous times to complainant but al the time he assured that he will come tomorrow or today but he never headed towards the office of OP-1. OP-1 sent a letter dated 11.11.2008 to complainant to collect the mobile phone after payment of necessary charges but he did not give any reply nor made any communication. Then OP-1 again sent a letter to complainant on 20.01.2009 requesting him to take his mobile phone back otherwise the same shall be disposed of within 30 days but complainant instead of collecting the same sent a letter dated 06.04.2009 and OP-1 was shocked to see the contents of the letter which are false and frivolous. It is prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 hence the complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 was proceeded ex parte.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is significant to note that when the complainant handed over the phone to OP-1, engineer of OP-1 observed that there was keypad problem, MIC problem and battery problem. It is nowhere mentioned in the job card that the phone was water logged. Assuming for the sake of argument that the phone was water logged, nothing prevented OP-1 to issue notice to complaint to inform him about the same. Complainant has specifically denied in rejoinder about the receipt of letter dated 11.11.08 but has admitted about the receipt of the letter dated 20.01.09. Complainant has specifically denied that the phone was water logged. OP-1 has not placed anything on the record to show that the phone was water logged. OP-1 was the authorised service centre of the OP-2 so OP-2 is liable for the lapse of OP-1. It is proved that the phone was defective and defects were not rectified.
OP-2 is directed to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.4,200/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from filing of the complaint. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
