Delhi

North West

CC/108/2016

RITU KHANDEWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.S. TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 108/2016

D.No.________________________         Date: ________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

RITU KHANDELWAL W/o SH. SUSHIL GUPTA,

R/o H. No. 96, KALYAN VIHAR,

DELHI-110009.… COMPLAINANT     

 

Versus

 

 

1. N.S. TELECOM,

    G-8, SHOP No. 17,

    MODEL TOWN-III, DELHI-110009.

 

2. PERFECT SERVICES,

    G-7, VARDHMAN FORTUNE MALL,

G.T. ROAD, GUJRAWALA,

AZADPUR, DELHI-110052.

 

3. INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (I) LTD.,

    D-18/2, OKHLA INDL. AREA,

    SECTOR-18, SECTOR-17,

    PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110020                       … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

 

                                                            Date of Institution: 14.01.2016   

                                               Date of decision:05.12.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs

CC No. 108/2016                                                                       Page 1 of 6

          under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a new mobile Intex Aqua Xtreme (Red), IMEI No. 911415700301599 vide invoice no.8823 on 14.04.2015 of Rs.11,500/- including VAT/CST from OP-1. In the month of September-2015, the complainant found some functioning problem i.e. ringer, Wi-Fi and touch problem in the mobile handset and in this regard to remove the said problem in the mobile handset on 22.09.2015 the complainant contacted to OP-2 and requested them to remove the said problem and OP-2 received the mobile handset against job sheet no. 509226430050T001 dated 22.09.2015. The complainant further alleged that at the time of taking faulty mobile handset the official of OP-2 assured to the complainant to return the said mobile handset in good running condition within one week but after passing about one month no one handed over the handset of the complainant and the complainant many times visited OP-2 and called to OP-3 and requested them to return her mobile handset but all the requests of the complainant fell in deaf years. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent an e-mail on 04.12.2015 after visiting so many times to office of OP-2 but there is no proper response from OPs and the complainant sent registered letter on 15.12.2015 to OP-3 vide speed post which was delivered on 17.12.2015 and the

CC No. 108/2016                                                                       Page 2 of 6

          complainant also many times contacted and requested to the manager of OP-3 telephonically but again the fake and false assurance were given by the manager of OP-3 and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the invoice amount i.e. Rs.11,500/- with interest from date of purchasing paid to them by the complainant towards the purchase of the mobile handset as well as compensation of Rs.1 lakh for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.1,100/- as cost of litigation.

3.       Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 25.02.2016. But none for the OP-2 & OP-3 appeared on 25.02.2016 & 09.03.2016 and as such OP-2 & OP-3 have been proceeded       ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2016. However, OP-1 has filed the reply and submitted that the complainant’s handset was sent to OP-2 for repair and the complainant has not taken back the handset from OP-2 i.e. service center. However subsequently none for OP-1 appeared on 04.08.2016, 25.01.2017, 04.05.2017, 05.09.2017 & 30.11.2017 and OP-1 was also proceeded ex-parte.

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and denied the submissions of OP-1.

CC No. 108/2016                                                                       Page 3 of 6

5.       In order to prove her case the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 8823 dated 14.04.2015 for purchasing the mobile issued by OP-1, copy of service request no. 509226430050T001 on 22.09.2015 issued by OP-2, copy of e-mail communication dated 04.12.2015 sent by the complainant to OP-3 and copy of letter dated 15.12.2015 written by the complainant to OP-3 alongwith postal receipt and tracking report.

6.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notices of this case from this forum, the OP-2 & OP-3 have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. Furthermore, no affidavit in evidence of any official of OPs have been filed to prove the defence of OPs.

7.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of her mobile phone to OPs within warranty period. OPs have not tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the mobile phone. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint

CC No. 108/2016                                                                       Page 4 of 6

          in respect of a new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defects in the product. As no evidence have been lead by OPs and as such it seems that OPs have no genuine defence. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

8.      Accordingly, the OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under: -

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,500/- being the price of the mobile phone on return of all the accessories and original bill/invoice.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes litigation cost.

9.       The above amount shall be paid by the OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 & OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 & OP-3 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

CC No. 108/2016                                                                       Page 5 of 6

 10.    Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 5^thday of December, 2017.

 

 

  BARIQ AHMED                            USHA KHANNA                   M.K. GUPTA

    (MEMBER)                                    (MEMBER)                      (PRESIDENT)