Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/16/2016

Ravi Sapra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Digital Store Authorized - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     16 of 26.02.2016

Date of Decision:                    :     19.05.2016

Ravi Sapra, Subsiedry Health Centre, Kulam Road, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Digital-E Store (Authorized Distributor of I-Berry Auxus Mobile, E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd). Kamraj – Kamraj, Prakasm Salai Broadway, 1^st Floor, Parry’s, George Town, Chennai – 600108, Phone – 8608380402.
2. A to Z Mobile Care (Ludhiana, PB), (Authorized Service Centre of I-Berry Auxus Mobile), Shop No.S8 Mata Rani Complex, 2^nd Floor, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana Punjab – 141005, Phone – 98141-41424.
3. I-Berry India, Building No.-4, Second Lane Beach, Chennai – 600001.
4. E-Bay India Ltd. 14^th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East) Mumbai – 400063.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

QUORUM:

MS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OPs                                   :         Ex parte.

ORDER

MS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       Ravi Sapra has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs.)  Praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.13,491/- i.e. the price of the mobile in question to complainant.
2. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss and mental agony suffered by him.
3. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 27.11.2016, he purchased mobile phone model I-Berry Auxus Prime P8000 – (White) IMEI No.354376071479477 from OP No.1 through OP No.4 for a sum of Rs.13,491/- vide bill No.21108 dated 27.11.2015. The said mobile set carried warranty of one year. It was delivered at the address given in the complaint. He paid the amount in cash at the time of taking the delivery of the said mobile through courier. However, from the very beginning the said mobile was giving problem. It would stop suddenly, it would hang, there was delay in display of the caller number, the finger print censer was malfunctioning, the dots would appear on  the screen and the speed would also slow down etc. In this regard complaint was lodged with OP. No. 3, through email dated 29.12.2015, 2,5,9,13,23,26 January 2016 and 2,3,5,10 February 2016 and on 22.01.2016.  On 22.01.2016, mobile in question completely stopped working.  Thereafter, the OP. No. 3 gave the address of Op. No. 2 i.e. the authorized service centre of Op. No. 3 and advised him to take the mobile set for its repair to it. Accordingly he approached  Op. No. 2 on 23.01.2016 for the repair of the said mobile in question, who retained the said mobile set and issued a receipt and told to come to collect it after a week. After one week when he went to collect the mobile set from Op. No. 2,  he was told that it could not be repaired free of cost and he would have to pay the repair charges, whereas the said mobile was within warranty. It is stated that he had handed over the sealed mobile set to the OP. No.2 for its repair but he received back the same from it unrepaired and its seal was found to be broken. It is further stated that by not repairing the mobile in question, the Ops have committed deficiency in service. Due to the said act of the Ops he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and physical loss, therefore they be directed to be compensate him as prayed for by him, in the complaint.

3.       None having appeared on behalf of OPs, inspite of issuance of notice, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 08.04.2016.

4.       In support of his version, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-1 alongwith copy of shipping declaration dated 27.11.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of order statement Ex.C-3 , copy of main report of A to Z Mobile Care dated 23.01.2016 Ex.C-4, details of summary (pages 1 to 4) Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.   

5.       We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       From the copy of shipping declaration dated 27.11.2015 Ex. C2, it is evident that the Op. No. 1 i.e. Digital-E Store (Authorized Distributor of I- Berry Auxus Mobile, E-Bay India Pvt. Ltd) sent the consignment  containing  mobile set i.e. Auxus PRIME P8000-White-Finger Print Sensor-3GB RAM-FHD-4165 main-iberry worth  Rs.13,491/- ,which was payable on delivery to the complainant. From the perusal of the job sheet dated 23.01.2016 Ex.C4 which was issued by A to Z Mobile Care i.e. Op. No.2, to the complainant while handing over the mobile set in question for repair, it is crystal clear that the mobile set in question was within warranty. As per the version of the complainant, that inspite of fact that the mobile set in question was within warranty, OP No. 2 refused to repair the same free of cost and asked him to pay the repair charges. It may be stated that none of the OPs have preferred to appear and rebut the above said version   put forth by the complainant. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant, which is duly supported by affidavit and other documents. Since from the job sheet dated 23.01.2016 Ex.C4 it is proved that the mobile in question was within warranty, it was the bounden duty of the OP No.2 to repair it free of cost, but it refused to  repair the same, free of cost and had demanded repair charges from the complainant. It may be stated that these days keeping a mobile is basic necessity and due to non-repair of mobile set in question by the OP No.2, the complainant has been deprived of its use.  Therefore, complainant is not only entitled to get the refund of amount of price of mobile set in question but also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses. 

Now the question arises for consideration before us is as to whether all the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant.

It may be stated that inspite of the fact that the mobile in question was within warranty, but OP No.2 had refused to repair the same free of cost and had demanded repair charges from the complainant, which it was not suppose to demand from the complainant, therefore, it is deficient in providing services to complainant and is liable to compensate him. Since, the Op. No. 2 is the authorized Service Centre of Op. No. 3 therefore the Op. No. 3 being manufacturer is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of the OP No.2. And thus we do not hesitate to conclude that the Op. No. 3 is also liable to compensate the complainant alongwith the OP No.2.  So for as the liability on the part of Ops No. 1 & 4 are concerned, it may be stated that in the  complaint the complainant has averred that he had purchased the mobile set in question from OP No. 1 through Op. No. 4 on Online. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against the OPs No.1&4 by the complainant nor it has been proved, thus no liability can be fastened against the said OPs and the complaint filed against the said OPs is liable to be dismissed. 

7.       In view of the aforesaid discussion we dismiss the complaint against the Op. No. 1 & 4 and allow the same against Op. No. 2 & 3. The Op. No. 2 & 3 are directed as under : -

1. To refund a sum of Rs.13,491/- i.e. price of mobile set.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The Op No.2&3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly or severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as per rules and file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  19.05.2016

 

                                                          (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member