CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO. CC/200/2016
Date of Institution:-26.05.2016
Order reserved on: 13.03.2023
Date of Decision:-31.03.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Naveen Kumar
R/o House No.172,
172, MadanPurKhadar,
Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi – 110076
Mobile No.– 9310867528 ......Complainant
VERSUS
- Arpit Communications
(A Reliance Communication Franchisee)
Through its Prop./A.R.
G-3, Skipper House 62-63,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
- Wish Tel Pvt. Ltd.
4 Champaklal Udyog
Bhawan, Sion (East),
Mumbai - 400022…..Opposite Party
O R D E R
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The Complainant has filed a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that OP-1 is the seller and distributor of OP-2. He has purchased a reliance mobile phone Wishtel IRA-101 (A1000044FE3F5B) for a sum of Rs.1900/- vide invoice No.23 dated 08.02.2016 from OP-1. He has informed the OP that he needs a mobile phone which contains FM, earphone and speaker. The box of mobile phone show the features like LED, ultra clear voice, loud music speaker, FM Radio, 2.4’ Ultra clear voice, 800MAH Battery, and Phone Book Memory of the Mobile Phone. The seal of the box was broken. This handset is neither having radio FM nor speaker facility. He raised the issue with the OP-1 who assured him to come day after tomorrow. He has visited the shop of OP-1 but the mobile phone was neither replaced nor returned. He has sent two letters though speed post on 03.04.2016 which was delivered on 11.04.2016 but in vain. A mail was sent through email of his friend on 21.05.2016 to OP-2 for the replacement of handset and also requested to refund the cost of handset but in vain. The OPs have neither replaced the handset nor refunded the money which has caused undue physical harassment and mental agony to him. There is deficiency-in-service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence, this complaint.
- The notice was issued to OPs. OP-1 has filed the reply to the fact that on 08.02.2016 the handset was sold to the complainant who was told about the features of the handset.OP-2 did not put their appearance despite several notices as OP-2 was proceededas ex-parte. The mobile phone was got checked after breaking the seal of the box. The complainant was duly satisfied. The complainant has told them after 10 days that get FM Radio only plays with the help of the lead and does not play on speaker. The complainant was apprised that this facility is not available on this mobile phone but complainant did not agree.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder and reiterated the taken stand that neither FM Radio nor speaker is available in the handset.
- The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon various documents. Annexure-1 is the copy of retail invoice, Annexure-2 is the photocopy of the box of handset containing features, Annexure-3 is the complaint given to OP-1 and Annexure-4 is the photocopy of the tracking report of the speed post letter issued to OP-1. The OP-1 did not lead any evidence. OP-1 did not put his appearance as OP-1 proceeded ex-parte, on 09.10.2017.
- We have heard the complainant and pursue the entire material on record.
- The complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1 and this fact is duly admitted by OP-1 in the reply.
- The sale and purchase of Mobile Phone in question is not a dispute.
- Annexure-2 is the photocopy showing the features of the mobile phone in question. The mobile phone in question is having facility of FM Radio. It is nowhere reflected on the box that FM will play on the mobile phone without earphones.
- The main grievance of the complainant is that the mobile phone is neither having the facility of FM nor of speaker. This fact does not find support from Annexure-3. The Annexure-3 is the complaint given by the complainant to OP-1 which shows that he was told by OP-1 that FM will run directly on speaker and also with the help of earphone but FM is not running on speaker.
- The earphones are required to run the FM Radio. FM Radio needs a signal receiver to receive the signals from the nearest FM Radio Station. The antenna is required the catch the FM signal. The Mobile phone in question does not have anyantenna the features of the mobile phone as reflected in Annexure-2 do not show that antenna facility is provided in the mobile phone. In the absence of the antenna, headphones are necessary to run FM Radio because headphones/earphones act like antennawhich catches the waves released by nearest FM radio station. FM radio will not run on the phone without plugging theheadphones/earphonesas headphones/earphones act like antenna. The complainant has to use the earphones before in order to run the FM on the mobile phone. The mobile phone is having facility to run FM with the help of earphones. The complaint that the mobile phone is neither having the facility of the FM nor with the speaker does not substantiate from the material on record.
- Hence, keeping in view our aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that complainant has failed bring the material on record in support of the allegations as set out in the compliant. There is no merit in the compliant. The complainant is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
Announce in the open court.
