Delhi

North East

CC/473/2014

Shri Shadman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Big Apple Cell Point - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 473/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Shadman H. No. 2006, Gali No. 19 New Mustafabad, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Big Apple Cell Point A-5/2, Main Brijpuri Road Near Tirpal Factory Indira Vihar, Delhi 110094   M/s Shree Communication C-4/8, FF, Yamuan Vihar, Delhi 110053	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	01.12.2014
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	25.04.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	01.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. In this complaint, the complainant had purchased a mobile set of MAXX Model No. MAXX-AX-51 (IMEI No. 911354000037043 & 91135400007050) of dark blue color from OP1 vide cash memo no. 527 dated 16.02.2014 for an amount of Rs. 5650/- with warranty given thereof by OP1 for one year. It had been further submitted that after the purchase, the above phone set started giving trouble as that the display screen of the phone set used to appear entire white. The above phone set was repaired by OP2 for which the job sheet was taken back at the time of return. Thereafter, the phone set started creating the same problem and as such it was again handed over to service centre of OP2 for repairs vide job sheet no. RO/F42/1415/0001180 dated 08.09.2014. It had been further submitted that OP2 had promised to carry out necessary repairs and it was stated that the phone set would be returned to complainant within a week but till date the same had not been returned despite many visits made by complainant to the service center. Further it has been submitted that the above phone set was very much in the warranty period at the time of handing over to OP2 for repairs and the fact of repeated faults in the above phone set clearly proved that the same was suffering from manufacturing defect and that is why the OP2 was unable to repair the above set for such a long period. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to get a new handset alongwith other reliefs. Moreover, due to non availability of the phone set, the complainant has been suffering mental and physical harassment as well as monetary loss, caused to him by OPs and as such the OPs are liable to be prosecuted for being engaged in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, it had been prayed by complainant vide the present complaint that the Hon’ble Forum may direct the OPs to immediately replace the phone set with a new phone set of the equivalent value of Rs. 5650/- and also to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical suffering and also Rs. 5,500/- towards litigation cost.
2. A copy of cash memo no. 527 dated 16.02.2014 for an amount of Rs. 5650/- for the purchase of MAXX-AX-51 mobile for an amount of Rs. 5650/- had been attached wherein it has been mentioned that all guarantee / warrantee  shall be taken by Company Service Center and goods once sold will not be taken back. Further, a copy of job sheet no. RO/F42/1415/0001180 dated 8.9.14 has been attached wherein it has been mentioned that the above mobile set is under warrantee.
3. Notice was issued to OPs on 02.12.2014 for appearance on 15.01.2015.  While the OP2 didn’t appear before this Forum and as such was declared against Ex parte.
4. OP1 filed written statement wherein it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the subject mobile phone from OP1 but OP1 stated that after selling the set, any retail shop and outlet was not responsible for any defect and fault and the warranty / guarantee worst that of the manufacturing company and its service centre. OP1 further took the plea that it was clearly mentioned in bill memo that all guarantee / warranty shall be taken up by service centre. However, if any service center or customer finds any manufacturing defect and fault within three days of purchase, service center can make “DOA” letter by which the set can be returned to distributor and wholesaler. Further, it has been submitted by OP1 that when after the purchase of aforesaid phone, it started given trouble in the display screen of the phone, the handset was repaired by the OP2. When the problem again arose, the phone set was again handed over to OP2 for repair by job sheet no. RO-F42/1415/0001180 dated 08.09.2014. OP1 further stated that it was promised by OP2 that after carrying out the necessary repairs, the phone set would be returned to complainant within a week but it was not returned despite many visits made by customer and the facts mentioned above clearly proved that the OP2 was engaged in unfair trade practice and not the OP1. It has been further prayed by OP1 that retail shop keepers were not responsible for a year warranty as they had given warranty / guarantee on the basis of service center (OP2 herein) and as such it had been requested that appropriate action in favour of OP1 be taken against OP2.

Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein OP1 admission of selling the mobile phone to the complainant and warranty thereon for one year given for said phone set was reiterated. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant wherein grievance in his complaint were reiterated with the contention that the phone set was very well within the warranty period at the time of handing over to OP2 for repair and due to non-availability of phone set the complainant had been suffering mental and physical harassment as well as monitory loss. Further, it was submitted that the phone set is still in the possession of OP2.

OP1 did not file evidence and had prayed for its written statements to be treated as arguments as oral and written and the same was recorded in the order sheet dated 15.01.2016. However, due to continuous non appearance of OP1, OP1 was proceeded against ex parte on 07.03.2018.

5. We have heard the arguments of complainant and also gone through other documents filed by parties.

It is not in dispute that the subject mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant from OP1 and it developed defects within six months of purchase and was submitted with OP2 in September 2014 for repairs after which was never returned to the complainant. In the absence of any rebuttal by the OP2, the complainant has succeeded in establishing a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP2. Therefore, we hold OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally liable as dealer and service centre for deficiency of service for selling defective mobile phone to the complainant and never repairing the same and handing over the repair handset back to the complainant. Therefore, we direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to replace the above mentioned defective mobile phone with a brand new mobile phone with accessories of the same model with proper warranty and of the value of Rs. 6,000/- approx. In addition of above, the OP1 and OP2 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mentally, physical suffering on complainant and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Let the order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest 9% p.a. shall be imposed on total awarded amount i.e. Rs. 13,000/- upon the OP1 and OP2 from the date of award till realization.

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

(Announced on 01.05.2018) 

           

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member