Punjab

Sangrur

CC/213/2016

Sonam Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal

07 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                 

                                                Complaint No.  213

                                                Instituted on:    29.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.06.2016

 

Sonam Garg daughter of Suresh Kumar, resident of Guru Nanak Colony, Street No.3, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd C/o TCI, Supply Chain Solutions, Khasra No.4/21, Gurgaon-Pataudi Road, Jhund Sarai Viran Village, Farukkhnagar Post, Gurgaon-122505 (Haryana) India.

2.             YU, B-82-Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Pin 110 064.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Ms. Sonam Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile phone set of Yu Yuphoria android B015W4UQJS bearing serial number 911476050639236 from OP number 1 through on line vide invoice number HR-3DEC-144105041-66657 dated 11.10.2015 for Rs.6499/- with one year warranty.  It is further averred that after few days of its purchase, the screen of the mobile set was broken, as such the complainant approached the authorised customer care of the company at Sangrur, who suggested to call the head customer care of the OP number 2.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2, who told the complainant that the screen is not under warranty and as such requested the complainant to pay Rs.2300/- for the replacement of the screen, as such they told the complainant that they have booked a courier company and will take the delivery of the mobile phone in question.  It is further averred that thereafter the employees of the courier company took the delivery of the mobile under receipt on 27.11.2015, which was thereafter duly acknowledged by the OPs, but the mobile set was not delivered back after repairs.  It is further averred that on 1.1.2015 the complainant sent a mail to the OP and in its reply on 8.1.2016, the OPs told that the parcel of the phone has been delivered, but it is denied that the same was not delivered to the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the above said mobile phone or refund the amount of Rs.6499/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 10.11.2015 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

2.             Record shows that the OPs did not appear despite service, as such, the OPs were proceeded exparte on 31.03.2016.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of pick up receipt, Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of emails and closed evidence. The OPs did not produce any evidence as they choose to remain exparte.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             Ex.C-1 is the copy of bill showing the purchase of the mobile set in question from amazon.in through on line on 11.10.2015. Ex.C-2 is the copy of delivery pick up showing the collection of the defective mobile set from the complainant by the OP on 27.11.2015 for repairs. The case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question was never returned after repairs despite the fact the complainant was to make the payment of Rs.2300/- to the OPs for repair of the mobile set in question as its screen had broken.  It is further on the file that the complainant sent an email to the Ops on 1.1.2015 that the mobile set in question has not been returned despite the fact that the mobile set was taken by the Ops for repairs on 27.11.2015, but in the reply to the mail on 8.1.2016, the Ops said that the parcel containing the mobile set has been delivered.  In the circumstances, the fact remains that the Ops took a long time for repairing the mobile set in question and after conducting repairs of the same it was delivered to the complainant very late, for which period the complainant deprived from the use of the mobile set in question.   But, in the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has admitted at the bar that the mobile set in question has been returned to the complainant after repairs.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 7, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member