DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.675 of 2012
Sri Abhyuday,
S/o Sri S.B. Ranglani,
R/o Flat No.307, Shalimar Estate,
New Hyderabad, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Del India Pvt. Ltd.,
Through General Manager,
Divyashree Greens Ground Floor,
12/1/12/2A, 13/A, Challa Ghatta Gaon,
Varthur, Hobli, Banglore, South Banglore-560071.
2. Initiative Data Systems Pvt. Ltd.,
9-D, Singar Nagar, Alambagh,
Lucknow-226005.
3. Excel Care Centre,
Through Manager,
Gulabi Shripad Enclave,
G-3, Building No.5-7-685/9,
Near Bharat Circle, Codial Bel,
Manglore-575002, Karnataka.
4. Care Manager, Del India Pvt. Ltd.,
Divyashree Greens Ground Floor,
12/1/12/2A, 13/A, Challa Ghatta Gaon,
Varthur, Hobli, Banglore, South Banglore-560071.
5. Manager, Del Service Centre,
L.G.-4, Tej Kumar Plaza,
75, Hazratganj, Lucknow.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of cost of mobile of Rs.24,000.00 with interest, replacement value of Rs.6,000.00 with interest, compensation of Rs.20,000.00 and cost of suit and other expenses of Rs.20,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had purchased a Del Streek mobile phone on 22.06.2011 from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.24,000.00 but the mobile phone became defective after a few months of its purchase. On 20.12.2011 the Complainant contacted the Del authorised centre then he was told by the employee that this model was having a manufacturing defect but he would try to rectify it by formatting and thereafter it was returned to him on 22.12.2011 after formatting. The Complainant went to Manglore for some private work where the phone became defective again in January, 2012. On 30.01.2012 when the Complainant went to Excel Care Centre then the official of the centre told that the handset had become dead and it could not be repaired but on the insistence of the Complainant the officials there demanded Rs.6,000.00 for replacing the old handset with a new one. Then the Complainant paid Rs.6,000.00 and he was given a new handset on 01.03.2012 and when he came back to Lucknow then the set again became defective on 27.05.2012 and when he went to the service centre then the official told that the handset could be formatted but he would not get any warranty as this was a new handset. When the Complainant wanted to get more information then the officials there misbehaved with him. Thereafter the Complainant after giving notice has filed this complaint.
Notices were issued to OP No.2, 3 and 5 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte vide orders passed on 16.05.2013 against OP No.2, 3 and 5.
The OP No.1 and 4 have filed the reply wherein it is submitted that there is no prima facie case against them. In order to provide the customer service the OP No.1 and 4 have taken best possible methods to resolve the present complaint. The Complainant is adamant to be compensated by abusing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The OP No.1 and 4 are engaged in manufacturing of laptops, computers and etc. The OP No.1 and 4 provide world class services to its customers. The Complainant had visited the service centre of OP with the issue of hanging and charging port and the same was diagnosed by the engineer and informed to the Complainant that hanging issue will be resolved by software up gradation but the charging port was completely damaged and Complainant need to pay the damage charges as the same will not be covered under the warranty. As per the service centre the Complainant was ready for the same. It is denied that the employee of the service centre said that the mobile phone had a manufacturing defect. The Complainant had visited Manglore service centre on 30.01.2012 with some issue in the handset. The engineer of service centre had diagnosed the same and found that the charging port is damaged. The engineer had informed the Complainant that the replacement will be provided on chargeable basis because the damage was not covered under warranty. The Complainant had agreed on the same and collected the replacement on 01.03.2012. The Complainant had again visited the Lucknow service centre on 29.05.2012 and the engineer had diagnosed the said mobile phone and informed the Complainant that they will provide the new handset as replacement but the Complainant was demanding for complete sealable pack box. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy they will provide the handset but the accessories will remain same but the Complainant had refused for the same. The Complainant had not suffered any loss. The OPs have not sold deliberately a faulty mobile. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 5 documents. The OP No.1 and 4 have filed the affidavit of Sri Yoga Manohar Kakumanu, Authorized Representative.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared to argue the case from the side of the OP. Perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant sold a defective handset by the OPs or not and even though the OP has charged Rs.6,000.00 for replacing the defective set and the new set also was a defective one and thus the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in providing a defective set to the Complainant.
In this regard, it is to be noted that the OP No.1 and 4 have admitted in their WS that the handset became defective and that the issue of hanging was resolved but for charging port charges were taken from the Complainant as it was not covered under the warranty. It is also admitted by the OP No.1 and 4 that at Manglore the engineer had informed the Complainant that the replacement of the set would be provided on chargeable basis because the damage of the set was not covered under warranty and the Complainant agreed for the same, hence he collected the replacement on 01.03.2012. From the aforesaid averments made by the OP No.1 and 4, it is clear that the handset became defective and that it had to be repaired and that at Manglore charges were taken from the Complainant for replacing the set. It goes without saying that the set would have been replaced only when the old one was a defective one, therefore it is clear that the earlier set which was replaced by the excel care centre OP No.3 was a defective one. It is also the case of the Complainant that the new handset also became defective and when he went to the service centre then the officials at the service centre had told him that there would not be any warranty on the replacement handset and that they misbehaved with him. The OP No.1 and 4 have admitted in their WS that the Complainant did visit the Lucknow service centre on 29.05.2012 and engineer diagnosed the mobile set and informed the Complainant that they would provide a new handset to the Complainant as replacement but the Complainant was demanding complete sealable pack box. This averment of the OPs is also an admission of the fact that even the new set was also not working, therefore they offered a new handset. Therefore, there are reasons to believe the version of the Complainant that even the replacement handset also became defective but neither the set was repaired nor a replacement was given even though the OP No.1 and 4 have stated in their WS that the Complainant was given the option to take the replacement but as he wanted the entire accessories etc. which could not be given, therefore the new handset was not given to him. The Complainant has also supported his contention about the defective handset through his affidavit and also by the documents filed by him. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to conclude that the Complainant was not only given a defective handset in the first instance but also a defective handset in the second instance. Therefore, OP No.1, 4 and 5 have committed unfair trade practice as also deficiency in service. There is also no reason to charge Rs.6,000.00 for the replacement of the first handset which was a defective one, therefore OP No.1, 4 and 5 have committed deficiency in service in providing defective sets and also charging Rs.6,000.00 for the replacement of the set which was a defective one. The OP No.1, 4 and 5 are liable to replace the defective handset with a new one and to refund Rs.6,000.00 with interest to the Complainant. As the Complainant has also been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.1, 4 and 5 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective handset of the Complainant with a new one and in case they are not able to provide the new handset then they would pay Rs.24,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant. The OP No.1, 4 and 5 are also directed to refund Rs.6,000.00 (Rupees Six Thousand Only) which was charged for replacement with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.
The OP No.1, 4 and 5 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 05August, 2015
