Case No.CC/324/2018

         Date of Institution:- 13.08.2018

            Order Reserved on :- 19.11.2024

           Date of Order :-05.12.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Braham Prakash

S/o Sh. Tula Ram,

O/o E.P.F. Organisation (HQ)

14, BhikajiCama Place,

New Delhi – 110066.

            …..Complainant

VERSUS

GIONEE INDIA (HQ)

E-9 Block B-1, Ground Floor,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, Badarpur Border,

New Delhi – 110044.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatthe complainant has purchased a new mobile phone A-I Black through online TATA cliqfrom OP on 01.11.2017and paid Rs.14,270/- to the OP.  The mobile phone was not working properly and the complainant went to the service centre Godson Enterprises Kamla Nagar on 06.02.2018.  The complainant was informed after checking the mobile phone that the phone was not working properly due to moisture into the mobile phone and this is not covered under warranty. Official of service centre informed the complainant that the complainant has to pay Rs.12,000/- for repair of the mobile phone.  The complainant has spoken that the cost of mobile phone was Rs.11,000/-.  The complainant has informed the official of service centre of OP that there was no rain from November, 2107 to January, 2018.  The complainant has tried to contact senior officer of the OP but in vain.  The complainant has sent emails on 09.02.2018, 19.02.2018 and 16.05.2015 but the OP has not replied to the complainant satisfactorily. On 05.06.2018, the complainant has lodged a complaint in the Hon’bleNational Consumer Court and asked the complainant to send the job sheet of the service centre.  The complainant has sent the job sheet to the National Consumer Court.  Later on the Hon’ble Court informed the complainant to file complaint to the concerned District Consumer Court.  Hence, this complaint. The complainant has prayed for providing a new mobile from OP.
2. Notice was served to OP.  OP did not appear despite due service and proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated22.10.2018. 
3. The complainant has filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
4. We have heard complainant and perused the record.
5. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased a new mobile phone A-I Black through online TATA cliq from OP on 01.11.2017and paid Rs.14,270/- to the OP.  The mobile phone was not working properly and the complainant went to the service centre Godson Enterprises Kamla Nagar on 06.02.2018.  The complainant was informed after checking the mobile phone that the phone was not working properly due to moisture into the mobile phone and this is not covered under warranty. Official of service centre informed the complainant that the complainant has to pay Rs.12,000/- for repair of the mobile phone.  The complainant has spoken that the cost of mobile phone was Rs.11,000/-.  The complainant has informed the official of service centre of OP that there was no rain from November, 2107 to January, 2018.  The complainant has tried to contact senior officer of the OP but in vain.  The complainant has sent emails on 09.02.2018, 19.02.2018 and 16.05.2015 but the OP has not replied to the complainant satisfactorily. On 05.06.2018, the complainant has lodged a complaint in the Hon’ble National Consumer Court and asked the complainant to send the job sheet of the service centre.  The complainant has sent the job sheet to the National Consumer Court.  Later on the Hon’ble Court informed the complainant to file complaint to the concerned District Consumer Court.
6. The complainant has paid consideration amount of Rs.14,270/- to the OP for purchase of  a new mobile phone but the mobile phone was not working properly. One who purchased a new mobile phone it assumes that the mobile phone is free from all defects.  The complainant has requested the OP to rectify the problem in mobile phone but the OP has not rectified the same.  The OP was under obligation to remove the defects in mobile phone or if the defect is not curable then OP should have handed over a new mobile phone to the complainant. This clearly constitutes deficiency in service, monopolistic and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7. The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is relied upon. .
8. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.14,270/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @ 7% p.a. on the amount.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 05.12.2024.