RAMESH KUMAR Vs. SAHNI COMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 003.2013. Thereafter the petitioner contacted the respondent no. 3 but till date the petitioner has not received the said mobile after repair.

(3.) 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 11.01.201 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 21.01.201 Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent no. 3 on 02.02013 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 06.0201