Delhi

East Delhi

CC/766/2015

NIRANJAN KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUS INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 766/15

 

Shri Niranjan Kumar Sharma

S/o Shri Harish Chand

R/o 413, Gali Panna Wali

Farsh Bazar, Shahdara

Delhi – 110 032                                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. Asus India Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 59, Mahashwari Nagar-I

Main Mahadevpura, While Field Road

Bengaluri, Karnataka- 560 048

 

2. M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd.

Devika Tower, 10-A, Upper Ground Floor

6^th Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi                                …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.09.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 23.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 25.01.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Niranjan Kumar Sharma against Asus India Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Niranjan Kumar Sharma purchased a mobile phone ASUS make, model no. AS Z E 551 ML 2A/Z 3580/64 GB bearing Sr. No. F8AZFG 017595 IMEI no. 354016071025660 through Flipkart by paying an amount of             Rs. 22,999/-. The phone was delivered on 30.08.2015. 

It was stated that after 2-3 days of purchase, the said mobile phone became dead on its own and got restart after sometime.  The complainant made a complaint on customer care number and was informed that they will send another mobile phone in replacement.  When the complaint did not get any response, he registered his complaint vide no. A 150935289 dated 05.09.2015.  He was directed to approach M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for getting the replacement.   

The complainant visited the office of M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), but they refused to replace the mobile  phone stating that they carry out repairing services only.  The complainant deposited his phone with OP-2 and got the job sheet.

It was further stated that the mobile phone was not genuine and having in-built manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund Rs. 22,999/-, the cost of mobile phone and other costs. 

3.       In the written statement filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2, they have stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Flipkart, hence, M/s. Flipkart was also a necessary party.

          It was stated that the phone was delivered to the complainant on 30.09.2015 and if the complainant was not satisfied with the phone, there was return and warranty policy of M/s. Flipkart.  Hence, the complainant should have returned the phone to M/s. Flipkart. 

          It was further stated that the complainant deposited his phone with OP-2 on 21.09.2015, after a period of 20 days.  It was found that there were hard scratches on the screen.  Senior Engineer of OP-2 reported that no fault/trouble was found in the phone, but the complainant intentionally did not collect the phone from OP-2.  Other facts have also been denied.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 
5.  

In defence, OPs have examined Shri Ramesh Chand who have also deposed on oath.He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. He has got exhibited documents such as retail invoice (Ex.DW1/1), job sheet (Ex.DW1/2) and warranty papers (Ex.DW1/3).

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none has appeared on behalf of OP1 & OP-2. Though, counsel for Asus India Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) did not appear to argue, but the evidence filed on bahalf of Asus India Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have to be considered.  The complainant have filed the evidence, but he has not placed any document on record.  On the contrary, Shri Ramesh Chand has been examined on bahalf of Asus India Private Limited (OP-1) and        M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) have got exhibited documents such as retail invoice (Ex.DW1/1) and service report (Ex.DW1/2) alongwith warranty information. 

From the evidence on record, it is noticed that complainant deposited the handset with M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) after 20 days, as admitted by them in their evidence.  The service report which has been filed on record, show that it was having hard scratches on screen.  When the handset was having hard scratches on it and there was no other fault, the testimony of OP have to be relied upon as the complainant himself did not get the handset back. 

If the handset was having any manufacturing defect, he should have immediately sent it for replacement through FLIPKART which delivered the handset on his demand.  Thus, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of Asus India Private Limited (OP-1) and M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).

The complainant may get his handset from M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) which he has deposited with them for service on paying the service charges, if any.  M/s. Regisis India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) is directed to return the handset to the complainant after service.  With this, the complaint stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President