RAMESH KUMAR vs SAHNI COMMUNICATION & 2 ORS.

The present revision petition no. 383 of 2017 has been filed against the judgment dated 11.11.2016 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 193 of 2014.

The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a mobile phone of HTC Desire C White 352276059986125 on 20.11.2012 at a price of Rs.12,000/- from respondent no. 1., i.e., Sahni Communication. Within a month after purchasing the said mobile, the mobile set was creating many problems in the software. Respondent no. 1 was informed about the said problems in the set, but respondent no. 1 advised the petitioner to contact the service centre, i.e., the respondent no. 3. On 01.01.2013, the petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 and handed over the mobile set for repair and respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner to collect the same after a week. After a week, when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 for collecting the mobile, they sought some more time as the mobile set was not ready and told the petitioner to collect the mobile after a week. After one week an official of respondent no. 3 handed over the mobile set to the petitioner. After taking delivery, the mobile set again started creating problem and again the petitioner approached the respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 again took the mobile for repair on 02.03.2013. Thereafter the petitioner contacted the respondent no. 3 but till date the petitioner has not received the said mobile after repair.

Respondent nos. 1 and 2/ opposite parties 1 and 2 did not appear before the District Forum. Respondent no. 3/ OP 3 filed their reply before the District Forum. In their reply, they admitted that they had first received the mobile for repair on 11.01.2013. The hand set was repaired against job sheet no. 3209 and after repair it was handed over to the complainant to his satisfaction against acknowledgement dated 21.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent no. 3 on 02.03.2013 with the same defect as previously. However, since the hand set was covered under original warranty of the manufacturer, i.e., HTC, the hand set was accordingly sent to them against job sheet no. Q7S13030600015 dated 06.03.2013.

The said hand set was received by respondent no. 3 on 25.03.2013. Attempts were made to deliver it to the petitioner on 26.03.2013 on which date the petitioner was not available and was away from home, therefore, he could not receive the delivery of the set. It was again sent on 28.03.2013 but the petitioner again was not available at his home but was contacted telephonically to which he advised for delivery on some other date. On 13.04.2013, the respondent no. 3 sent the mobile set but the petitioner refused to take the delivery of the set for the reason best known to him. The set was repaired within the given stipulated period but the petitioner on one pretext or the other did not receive the mobile.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Janakpuri, New Delhi (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 23.01.2014, while allowing the complaint passed the following order: "Authority letter filed by OP 3 and report on the record dated 16.12.2013 filed by OP 3, phone delivered to the complainant. It remained with the OP for ten months during which period complainant was deprived of its use. The warrant also lapsed unused. Therefore, we hereby order that OP shall extend the warranty of the mobile for one year from the date on which earlier warranty expires. OP''s defence is that thrice the phone was sent but complainant refused to take delivery. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of complainant is awarded for the compensation of Rs.3,000/-."

Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "It may be noticed that there is nothing on record to show that the repaired phone handed over to the appellant/complainant was not in working condition. The matter was finally disposed on 23.01.2014. There is nothing on record to show that after receipt of the phone, the complainant made another complaint in this regard to the respondent-3/OP-3. The warranty of phone by the District Forum has been extended for a period of one year from the date of expiry of earlier warranty. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded to the appellant/complainant. It has also come on record that it is the appellant/complainant who did not come forward to take the delivery of repaired phone. The order passed by the District Forum is just and proper. Appropriate relief has been given to appellant/complainant. No irregularity or illegality is seen in the impugned order. There is no merit in this case. We dismiss the appeal" .

Hence, the present revision petition.

Today we have heard the petitioner in person. He has contended that he has been given a meagre compensation for the harassment he has gone through. He further contended that the phone which was handed over to him is still not working.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner bought the mobile on 20.11.2012. The petitioner first gave it for repair on 11.01.2013 and after repair, the mobile was returned to him. Thereafter he again approached respondent no. 3 on 02.03.2013. Since, the mobile set was covered by the original warranty of the manufacturer, i.e., HTC, the set was sent to HTC for repair on 06.03.2013. It was received by respondent no.3 after repair on 25.03.2013. Attempts were made to deliver the phone to the petitioner but he was not available nor did he come to collect the phone. As per the order of the District Forum, the petitioner was delivered the phone and the same was received on 16.12.2013. The District Forum has correctly ordered that the respondent shall extend the warranty of the mobile for one year from the date on which the earlier warranty expires and also awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/-. The State Commission has also correctly held that there is nothing on record to show that the repaired phone handed over to the petitioner was not in a working condition. There is nothing on record to show that after receipt of the phone he made another complaint to respondent no. 3 regarding its mal-functioning.

It would appear that the petitioner having since purchased a new mobile phone and since he is using the same is trying to extract maximum amount he can from the respondent no. 3 for his old phone purchased in 2012 for which he has no further use.

In view of the above, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown to us which calls for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed.