Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/206/2014

Ruby - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. S. Mobility Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                            Consumer Complaint No.206 of 2014                                                                                                                                                             Date of Institution: 30.06.2014/01.07.2014                                                                                                                                        Date of Decision: 25.02.2015

Ruby D/o Sh.Somdutt, R/o 412-A, Partap Nagar, Gurgaon.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. S. Mobility Ltd., S. Global Knowledge Park, 19-A, & 19-B, Sector-125, Noida-201301 UP through its Director/Manager.

 

2. Spice Retail Ltd., Shop No.10 & 11, Old Delhi Road, Opposite Sector 14, Gurgaon through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.

 

3. Spice Retail Ltd, Authorized Service Centre, Search Collection Point, 1789/3, Rajeev Nagar, Main Mata Road, Gurgaon through its Director/Manager.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Complainant Ruby in person

                    Sh.V.K.Bhardwaj, Adv for OP-1

                    OP-2 exparte

                    Sh.Vinay Yadav, Adv for OP-3

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.    

 

              The complainant alleged that she has purchased Spice Mobile Phone Model M-510 IMEI No.911319500013604, 911319500063708 for a sum of Rs.9500/- manufactured by OP-1 from its authorized dealer OP-2 vide Invoice No.1371106 dated 29.10.2013 with one year Warranty (C-1).It is further alleged that after one month of its purchase the Mobile Phone went out of order due to hand free jack and heating problem. She approached OP-3 for removing the defects in the handset on 12.04.2014 on payment of Rs.350/- to OP-3(no receipt produced). The mobile phone again became out of order and vide Service Request No.07101561E0300 dated 17.05.2014 (C-2) and vide Service Request No.0710561E50416 dated 26.05.2014  it was handed over to OP-3 with delivery date 04.06.2014 (C-3).  The complainant further alleged that she visited OP-3 several times but they failed to remove its defect  nor returned the handset, however,  on her  persistent request OP-3  turned it but wrongly and illegally demanded Rs.1350/- though within Warranty. Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to her  as the complainant is unable to use the defective Mobile Phone and thus, the complainant suffered a great harassment. The complainant prayed that she is entitled to refund of the price of mobile phone Rs.9500/- + Rs.350/- with interest @ 24 % p.a.  She also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment causing mental agony. She also claimed  litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.

2.                OP-1 in its written reply while denying the claim of the complainant has taken objection that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and thus, is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OP.  However, it is admitted that as per limited warranty conditions of company the company provides one year limited warranty (CA) with each and every new genuine handset upon production of the valid invoice for which the complainant is required to approach authorized service centre for delivery and collection of the handset. However, the complainant shall have no coverage or benefit under this limited warranty, interalia if the product has been subjected to unauthorized modification, unauthorized repair etc. In such event the answering OP stands released from its warranty obligations. It is denied that service centre has charged Rs.350/- from the complainant for repair of the handset on 12.04.2014. The complainant failed to prove her allegations. Further, the complainant visited the service centre on 26.05.2014 for repair of the handset. However, the handset was received with the following condition :

“Handset is being received as per “Limited warranty Terms and Conditions”. Spice may refuse to undertake repair of warranty void handset which include liquid logged, unauthorized tampering, damage due to act of God like rain, storm, fir, lightening etc.”

Upon thorough check it was found that there was an unauthorized tempering i.e. “Audi connection Track of the handset was found open” in the handset. The handset was accordingly declared “Warranty Void” as per Limited Warranty Conditions  and the complainant was intimated to deposit requisite charges for repairing of the handset. An automated SMS was sent to the complainant on his registered Mobile No.08802919088 on 04.06.2014 but she refused to pay the requisite charges. The copy of Job Sheet No.710561E50416 dated 26.05.2014 is (OP-1/A). The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the answering OP. The complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.

3                 OP-2 however, failed to turn up before this Forum despite service and thus, was proceeded exparte on 22.09.2014.

4                 OP-3 in its written reply while denying the claim of the complainant has taken objections that complainant has approached answering OP with a defective mobile set make MI 510 in the month of May, 2014 and the defect in the handset was got removed by the answering OP and the same was duly handed over in complete working condition to the complainant on 20.05.2014 and the complainant had after satisfying herself with the removal of the defect taken the delivery. The complainant again approached the answering OP with the handset on 26.05.2014 (OP-1/A) and upon inspection it was found that the complainant had got checked the same with some outside agency and it was found that “audio connector track was open”. Thus, the said conduct of the complainant caused violation of the terms and conditions of the Warranty. Still the answering OP had accepted the said handset for repairs and the same again got ready for delivery for repairs for 04.06.2014. The handset was in complete working condition, however, the complainant started raising outrageous demands and started demanding new handset along an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant, however refused to take the delivery of the handset as the handset was repaired without warranty. Thus, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of answering OP. The complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed.

5                 We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after perusing the record available on file we are of the considered opinion that complainant has purchased Spice Mobile Phone Model M-510 IMEI No.911319500013604, 911319500063708 for a sum of Rs.9500/- manufactured by OP-1 from its authorized dealer OP-2 vide Invoice No.1371106 dated 29.10.2013 (C-1) with one year Warranty (C-A). The complainant alleged that handset became out of order due to hand free jack and heating problem and thus, she has taken it to the authorized service centre of the manufacturer i.e. OP-3 on 12.04.2014 and paid Rs.350/- to OP-3 but no receipt of payment produced to  prove her contention.  Later on, it was also taken to OP-3 vide Service Request No.07101561E04156 dated 17.05.2014 with the complaint “Handset have hand free jack heating problem and auto On/Off” (C-2)  and returned in working condition though not signed by complainant and lastly, it was again taken to OP-3 vide Service Request No.0710156E50416 dated 26.05.2014 with the same complaint “handset have hand free jack and heating problem” (C-3) but it was returned under warranty  “RWR-Audio Connector Track Open Found” but the same time on (OP-1/A) at which Warranty void which are contradictory. Thus, the above Service Requests (C-2) & (C-3) show that “the handset have hand free jack heating problem and auto On/Off” but they failed to repair the same within the Warranty though have taken a false plea that it was got repaired  from outside agency though there is no mention  in their Service Request dated 17.04.2014 (C-2) regarding repair while (C-3) and (OP-1/A) of same date are contradictory and cannot be believed.  Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

6                 Consequently, the OPs are directed to replace the handset of the complainant with new one or to refund its price Rs.9500/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant has been harassed by the OPs causing mental agony and thus, she is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. However, she failed to prove that OPs have charged Rs.350/- from her on 12.04.2014 as she failed any receipt or Bill to this effect and thus, she is not entitled to Rs.350/-.

Compliance be made within 30 days.  .

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 25.02.2015.

                                                                                                 President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 (Jyoti Siwach)

                       Member