Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/74

MRS. PRIYANKA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANGLA TELECOM CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

 

CASE NO.  74/2017

MRS. PRIYANKA DEVI

ADD-RZ-173, T. EXTENSION,

GALI NO. 7, VISHWAS PARK,

UTTAM NAGAR, D.K. MOHAN GARDEN,

S.O. WEST DELHI,

NEW DELHI-110059.                                                                        …..Complainant

VERSUS

MANGLA TELECOM CENTRE

E-27, MILAP NAGAR, UTTAM NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110059.                                                                        …..Opposite Party-1

 

 

MI EXCLUSVIE SERVICE CENTRE

H-5, 2^ND FLOOR, JANAKPURI DISTRICT CENTRE,

NEW DELHI-110058.                                                                        …..Opposition Party-2

 

 

 

 

 

IKAVA BUSINESS CENTRE

8^TH FLOOR UMIYA BUSINESS BAY PARK,

KADUBESSAANAHALLI, MAHARATHAHALLI,

MAHARATHAHALLI, SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD,

BANGALORE-560103.                                                                    …..Opposite Party-3

 

O R D E R

 

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

      The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Briefly the facts as stated by the complainant are that she purchased mobile handset of make and model Mi Redmi 3S from OP-1 on 24.11.2016 for a sum of Rs. 8,900/-. The complainant purchased Sim Card on 26.11.2016 from OP-1 and when she inserted Sim the handset was not working properly and the Camera was also not functioning. It is alleged that the complainant approached OP-1 and requested for replacement of handset, who told the complainant to approach service centre for repair of the defects and thereafter she deposited the handset on 07.12.2016 with OP-2. After a week complainant approached OP-2 and they informed that the mobile handset had liquid, therefore, it is out of warranty and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- would be charged for repair and a sum of Rs. 173/- for service charge. The complainant confronted with OP-2 that the handset is within the warranty, but to no effect. The complainant was forced to pay Rs. 173/- as service charge to take back her phone which was totally dead. Hence, the present complaint to refund the invoice amount of the handset, service charge and compensation totally as a sum of Rs. 13, 073/-.

                After notice, OP-3 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the product had suffered liquid damage and as per warranty terms the warranty of the product had become void and is not covered under standard warranty terms and conditions and it is repairable on payment of repair charges, which the complainant refused to pay. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has not shown any manufacturing defect and the OP-2 technically examine the product and found the product had suffered liquid damage and was accordingly informed to the complainant and also informed the estimated amount of repair. It is averred that it was customer induced damage, and same was excluded from the warranty terms. Hence, there is no cause of action against the OP-3.

                After notice, none put in appearance on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 and accordingly were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2017.

                When the complainant and OP-3 were asked to lead evidence, the complainant had filed an affidavit of evidence and testifying the contents of the complaint on oath and relied upon Annexure 1& Annexure 2. On the other hand, OP-3 Sh. Sameer BS Rao S/o Sh. Sundar Rao, Authorized Representative had filed an affidavit of evidence on oath and relied upon Annexure A & Annexure B.Written arguments filed by the complainant and OP-3.

                We have heard the Ld. Counsel of complainant and OP-3 and gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

                The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought or not. From the perusal of the Annexure-2 job-sheet dated 07.12.2016, complainant was informed that warranty terms are subject to technical verifications i.e. liquid damage etc. and Annexure-A service record dated 07.12.2016 clearly reveals there is liquid damage, hence the warranty is used as per terms and condition. The complainant miserably failed to show that product in dispute is within warranty or there is any manufacture defect. Moreover, she is unable to prove that the handset is not suffering from liquid damage. Therefore, we are of considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint, hence, dismissed.

                File be consigned to Record Room.

                Copy of Order be given as per rules.

                Pronounced this____29TH_______May, 2019.

 

(PUNNET LAMBA)                                                                     (K.S. MOHI)

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT