Delhi

North West

CC/589/2015

BHUPINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BEST SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 589/2015

D.No._______________________           Date: __________________         

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

BHUPINDER SINGH S/o SH. BHAGIRATH SINGH,

R/o 4/34, 2^nd FLOOR,

ROOP NAGAR, DELHI-110007.… COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

 

1. BEST SERVICES,

    (THROUGH ITS MANAGER),

    SHOP No. G-1 & G-2,

    EXPRESS ARCADE PLOT No. H-10,

    NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE,

    PITAM PURA, NEW DELHI-110034.

 

2. MOTOROLA MOBILITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    (THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR),

12^th FLOOR, TOWER D, DLF CYBER GREENS,

 DLF CYBER CITY, GURGAON-122002.            … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

 

                                               Date of decision:17.11.2017

 

MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

ORDER

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant ordered a MotoX-XT1052 (Black

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 1 of 7

          Colour) mobile handset through online service provider Flipkart on 29.07.2014 and product tax invoice # WFLD20140701316466 and the product was received on 30.07.2014 with IMEI No. 353217051516402 and the payment was made in cash on delivery at a price of Rs.23,999/-. On 08.02.2015, the rear camera of the mobile handset stopped working and the complainant approached to customer support division of OP-2 and followed the troubleshooting measures referred by OP but none of the measures worked. On 09.02.2015, the complainant took the mobile handset to OP-1 for repair and OP-1 assured the complainant that the mobile handset would be replaced with a new handset or else the mother board of the mobile handset would be replaced with a new mother board and the mobile handset was still under warrantee and was in a good condition.The complainant further alleged that OP-1 asked the complainant to deposit the mobile handset with all accessories including the box except its earphones and OP-1 informed the complainant that the replacement of the mobile handset would take 7 to 10 days and OP would inform the complainant when the new mobile handset arrives and after not receiving any call even after 7 days on 16.02.2015, the complainant made a phone call to OP-1 and OP informed the complainant that the mobile handset has arrived and he could come and collect it.

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 2 of 7

          The complainant further alleged that the complainant was  given a refurbished mobile handset which was not a new one but an old one and it had a crack on its back cover and was 2 months older than the original handset and the complainant checked the mobile handset and it was not even reset properly and the IMEI no. of the mobile handset was 353217051510264 and the complainant received an invoice from OP-1 which was not even on the complainant’s name but was an invoice for a mobile handset under exchange and the complainant further inquired about the invoice OP-1 took it away and provided the complainant with a challan which was provided by OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the refurbished mobile handset has been giving comparatively more problems and network issue and connectivity problems and the complainant took the refurbished handset to OP-1 again and OP-1 kept it for 4 to 5 days and informed the complainant that OP-2 had stopped replacing handsets. The complainant further alleged that the complainant visited the service center and informed that the mobile handset which the complainant received in exchange of his original mobile handset had developed network and connectivity problems and the complainant has been using OP-2’s mobile handset since a long time but this experience had been a bitter one and the complainant had sent repeated e-mails to the OPs every

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 3 of 7

          time the OPs received stereotyped replies stating that the issue was still under process and it would take a little moretime. The complainant further alleged that OP-2 replied through e-mails initially that the grievance of the complainant has been escalated to the repair status specialist team of OP-2 who were experts in service center related grievances and they would get back to the complainant within 48 hours which unfortunately did not happen and they sent an e-mail again and informed the complainant that the mobile handset needed further service and OP assured would update the complainant within 4 days which unfortunately did not happen. The complainant further alleged that the complainant received an e-mail on 05.05.2015 from OP-2 and was informed that OP-2’s concerned department was still working on the issue and the complainant sent a letter on 22.04.2015 to the OPs stating deficiency in service and has suffered a loss and further alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant, to replace the mobile handset with a new mobile handset or return the complainant’s original mobile handset at the earliest as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 4 of 7

          mental agony and harassment. The complainant has also sought an amount of Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on28.08.2015and the notice to OP-1 was served on 20.07.2015 & notice to OP-2 was served on 21.07.2015 as per track reports. But none for the OPs appeared on 28.08.2015 and as such OPs have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.08.2015.

4.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail/tax invoice dated 29.07.2014 issued by WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., copy of customer unit receipt vide work order no. TQR/MG/14/03940 dated 09.02.2015, copy of delivery challan dated 11.02.2015, copy of customer unit receipt vide work order no. TQR/MG/14/04384 dated 07.03.2015, copy of e-mail 19.02.2015 sent by complainant to the OP, e-mail dated 09.04.2015, 10.04.2015, 13.04.2015, 17.04.2015, 21.04.2015, 05.05.2015 & 11.05.2015 from OP to the complainant and copy of letter dated 19.04.2015 written by the complainant to OP alongwith copies of courier receipts. In the e-mail communication dated 11.05.2015, OP has stated that “we will update you with the complete information of your device within 3 days. And also we will make sure that you will receive your device back soon”.

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 5 of 7

5.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving summons of this case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.

6.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service enter of OP-2 within warranty period. Though OPs had tried to rectify the defect which has been occurring in the mobile phone again and again. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product. Frequent recurring of the defect in the mobile clearly shows that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile which OPs have failed to rectify. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaints frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, both the OPsare held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

7.       Accordingly, both the OPs jointly or severally are directed as under:

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.23,999/- as the cost price of mobile phone.

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 6 of 7

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- ascompensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and includes litigation cost.

8.       The above amount shall be paid by both the OPs jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment.  If OPs fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 9.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 17^th day of November, 2017.

 

 

  BARIQ AHMED                            USHA KHANNA          M.K. GUPTA

    (MEMBER)                                    (MEMBER)                  (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

CC No. 589/2015                                                                         Page 7 of 7