Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/856/2019

Nikhil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 856 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 27.12.2019

                                                                 Date of Decision               : 17.10.2023

 

 

Nikhil Kumar son of Sh. Sajjan Kumar R/o Rai Singh ki Dhani, Gali No.1, near Ghantaghar, Bhiwani.

           

..….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Manager, Airtel Store, Bhiwani, Shop No.9, Near J.B. Gupta Hospital, Zoo Road, Bhiwani-127021.

 

2. Manager, E-com Courier Express, Naya Bazar, Near Dev Electronics Wali Gali, Bhiwani.

 

3. General Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.16, Phase IV, Sector-18, Gurugram-122015.

 

4. General Manager, One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,3^rd Floor Fleet House, Marol Naka, Beside Andheri-Kurla Road, Gamdevi, Marol Naka, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059.

 …...Opposite Parties.

 

                        COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -        Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                        Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:          Sh. Suraj Chand Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 3.

                        Sh. Vikas Nagar, Advocate for OP No.2.

                        OP No.4 exparte.

 

ORDER

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                     Brief facts of this complaint are that on 13.02.2018 complainant purchased a mobile i-phone having IMEI No.356719089511591 in Rs.79,000/-from Raheja Mobile, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.  Complainant has submitted that he purchased a mobile sim card no.9896278586 postpaid plan on 08.01.2019 from OP No.1 which include insurance of the mobile phone for the period from 13.01.2019 to 12.01.2020  for its damage etc.  and in such case, customer had to pay 10%  repair charges and in lieu of that the mobile was to be repaired.  Complainant has submitted that he lodged claim with regard to his mobile phone on 26.02.2019 vide request no.4009555 and the mobile phone was picked up by OP No.2.  Complainant has alleged that on 06.03.2019 OP company told that mobile repair charges will be Rs.53,300/- and complainant has to pay Rs.6500/- for it,  as per complainant, he paid the said amount online. On 09.03.2019, OP company told that the mobile phone has repaired and the same was being sent through OP No.2-courier company. Complainant has alleged that the OP company sent the mobile phone without any repair, so complainant contacted the OP, upon which, the mobile set was called back on 13.03.2019. On 20.03.2019, OP No.2 called the complainant to pick up his mobile phone.  Complainant asked for open delivery of the mobile set but the OP No.2 showed objection for it.  Complainant has alleged that OP company told him that his mobile phone had been found indulge in unauthorized modification  thus the OP company will not repair the mobile set nor it will be returned back.  Complainant has alleged that the mobile set was never used unauthorized. Then complainant contacted OP No.4- Apple Care Center wherefrom it came to know that the said mobile phone was never brought for service at their service center.  Complainant has alleged services to his mobile phone was stopped by OP company  despite his ready to deposit the mobile phone bill, however, which could not be deposited due to  server down.  Complainant has alleged that the mobile phone is still deposited with the OP company and they have not given him benefit of insurance policy and price of the mobile phone has now reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Thus complainant has been submitted that he has been harassed mentally as well physical due to act & conduct of OP company. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions to OPs No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.79,000/- to the complainant as price f the mobile phone alongwith interest as well as Rs.1,50,000/- on account of harassment charges.

2.                     Notices were sent to the OPs.  OP No.4 did not bother to appear and was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 31.12.2020.

3.                     OP No.1 & 3 filed their joint written statement raising objections qua no cause of action; no jurisdiction and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, it has been submitted that Raheja Telecom has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint. It has been submitted that the mobile connection no.9896278586 was issued to the complainant but the complainant has mentioned the terms of the alleged insurance cover without enclosing the terms & conditions thereof.  The answering Ops have denied for depositing of the alleged amount for repairing of the mobile phone. The Ops have submitted that in case of unauthorized modification of the mobile set, complainant cannot ask for repair under any of the insurance policies as the same are not entertained by the insurance companies. The OPs have denied the version of complainant that he talked with Apple Store. It is denied that server can be down on three consecutive occasions.  It has been submitted that payments for inactive numbers is never rejected and is posted in the account as and when the payment is made.  In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua the answering OPs has been made.

4.                     OP No. 2 filed its written statement to the effect that this OP is a Courier Service Provider and the role of it is confined only to the extent of picking up the courier from one partner and delivering it to the other partner as per instructions. As per OP No.2, complainant has admitted that courier was duly delivered to the concerned person. However, not providing of AWB number by complainant, OP is unable to confirm the fact of delivering the mobile phone. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

5.                     In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant has tendered documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 and closed the evidence on 21.10.2022.

6.                     On the other side, learned counsels for OPs No.1 to 3 did not produce any documentary evidence rather preferred to read their respective written statement in the evidence and closed the same vide separate statement dated 11.05.2023.

7.                     We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

8.                     At the beginning, the grievance of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question got damaged within its insurance period but despite completing all necessary formalities, OPs No.1 & 3 failed to get it repaired rather kept the mobile phone with them two times.  The counsel for complainant has argued that the mobile phone facility of the alleged number of complainant was stopped without any rhyme or reason whereas the complainant was ready to deposit the necessary bill/charges for it.  The counsel has vehemently argued that the mobile phone is still deposited with the OPs No.1 & 3 and in the absence of the same, complainant has to suffer a lot mentally as well as physically. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the OPs may be penalized for their act & conduct and to accept the complaint in toto.

9.                     On the other side, learned counsel for OPs No. 1& 3 argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and mobile phone of complainant was repaired, however, due to unauthorized modification, the complainant was not allowed the insurance facility and services to his mobile phone was stopped due to non-payment of bills and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 kept their arguments on the lines as that of in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

11.                   Photocopy of purchase bill of the mobile phone has been placed on record as (Anneuxre C-1) which reveals that the product was purchased on 13.02.2018 from Raheja Mobiles, Bhiwani.  From Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-20 it is revealed that the mobile phone became defective and its repair cannot be done by the OPs and as per averments of complainant the mobile set is lying deposited with the OPs No.1 & 3.  The allegation of unauthorized modification by Ops has not been proved on record by any authentic document. Admittedly the complainant has used the mobile phone for about one year and definitely the value the mobile set has decreased.  As such, we deem it fit to deduct 30% value of the mobile set from its actual cost.

                        In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Ops No.1 & 3 are not only deficient in providing proper services to the complainant rather committed unfair trade practice by not acting as per their policy.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops No.1 & 3 jointly and severally to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To pay Rs.55,300/- (Rs.Fifty five thousand three hundred) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) as compensation on account of harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/-(Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                        In case of default, the Ops No.1 & 3 shall liable to pay simple interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.          

Announced.

Dated:17.10.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                  (Saroj Bala Bohra)          

                                                       Member              Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.