DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.21of 2014

      Sri Subhash Chandra Chauhan, aged about 45 yrs.,

      S/o Sri Ram Kumar Singh,

      R/o 84/295, Sarojini Devi Lane,

      Katra Maqboolganj, Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                1.  Apex Enterprises,

                    Suraj Deep Complex,

                    Near Aaj Press, Jopling Road,

                   Lucknow.

                   Through Manager.

               2. Spice Mobile Co. Ltd.,

                   S Global Knowledge Park,

                   19 A and 19 B, Sector 125,

                   Noida. U.P.-201301.

                   Through Managing Director.           

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of cost of mobile of Rs.4,999.00 with 18% interest, compensation of Rs.30,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.5,500.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that on 20.01.2013 he purchased a mobile of Spice Co. for a sum of Rs.4,999.00 from OP No.2. This mobile was sent by the Home Shop 18 through courier wherein there was a warranty of one year. The mobile was defective right from the beginning and within a few months many defects such as the mobile not getting charged and head phone not connecting and the battery getting discharged after 2 hours cropped up. The Complainant went to OP No.1 on 30.08.2013 for repairing the mobile and it

-2-

was kept by the OPs giving him a job sheet which was taken back by the OPs when giving the mobile back to the Complainant. The mobile was repaired after 10 days but it became defective again on 07.05.2013 and Complainant again gave mobile to the OPs and in fact he got mobile repaired for about 4 times and the OPs with the purpose of terminating the warranty of the mobile gave different sets of different IMEI numbers. Because of the harassment, the Complainant contacted the OPs and asked them to replace the mobile but only assurances were given to him. The Complainant has not been given back the defective mobile after repairs nor was it replaced and it is still lying with the OP No.1 w.e.f. 03.12.2013. There is manufacturing defect in the mobile and the OPs have committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service in selling out such a defective piece to the Complainant, hence this complaint.

          Notice was issued to OP No.1 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.1 vide orders passed on 03.03.2014.

          The OP No.2 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.2 possesses a goodwill and have an established market. The answering OP has no idea about the conversation held between Complainant and OP No.1 regarding handset. It is admitted that as per warranty scheme of company they provide a one year warranty with each and every new handset. The handset was repaired/replaced to the full satisfaction of the Complainant whenever he visited the service centre. The handset deposited on 07.09.2014 was fully repaired but it was the Complainant who refused to accept the repaired handset and accordingly the handset was replaced with another handset and handed over to the Complainant. Whenever the Complainant visited the service centre he was given proper services/response. It is the Complainant who is trying to blackmail the answering OP. The Complainant is

-3-

demanding brand new handset despite his handset being in properly working condition. The Complainant has not attached copy of the job sheet dated 03.12.2013/emails to prove his allegation and hence it is denied that the handset of the Complainant is lying with the service centre. There is no deficiency on the service of answering OP, hence he is not liable for any compensation to the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 8 papers. The OP No.2 has filed the affidavit of Sri B.M. Agarwal, Authorized Signatory, Spice Mobile Ltd.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant was provided a defective mobile set by the OPs or not and whether the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service or not and if so its consequences.

          The Complainant has filed a photocopy of retail invoice which shows that the Spice mobile was purchased by him for a sum of Rs.4,999.00 on 20.01.2013. The manufacturer of the mobile is OP No.2 the Spice Mobile Co. Ltd. The Complainant has also filed copies of service requests dated 07.09.2013, 10.10.2013, 09.11.2013 and 03.12.2013 which show that there were faults in the mobile purchased by the Complainant which also show that IMEI numbers were also changed. From the aforesaid documents it is absolutely clear that many times problems occurred in the mobile set. In this regard, the Complainant has filed his affidavit detailing as to how his mobile set became defective and how he had to run to the OPs for getting it repaired. He has also stated that he got the mobile repaired for about 4 times and that he was provided with different IMEI numbers. The OP No.2 has taken the stand that the set was repaired properly but no proper justification has

-4-

been given as to why the set had to be repaired for so many times and why the OPs provided different IMEI numbers. The Complainant has stated in his affidavit that his mobile set was still lying with the service centre and the same could not be repaired but the service centre has not been turned up to refute or counter the allegations of the Complainant. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record, it can safely be concluded that the Complainant’s mobile set was a defective one as it became defective many a times and that the OPs even had to change IMEI numbers but still the set provided to the Complainant could not be repaired properly and that it was still lying with the service centre. The OPs have committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service in selling out the defective mobile set to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to a new mobile set of the same value from the OPs. The Complainant has also been harassed in this regard, hence he is also entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to provide a new mobile set of the same value to the Complainant and in case they are not able to do so, then pay Rs.4,999.00 (Rupees Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.

          The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.

     (Anju Awasthy)                                          (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                                    President    Dated:    13 August, 2015