Delhi

North East

CC/282/2016

KAILASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURUKUL TECHNOLOGY - Opp.Party(s)

04 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. 282/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Kailash S/o Shri Bheem Sain R/o House No. 217, Gali No. 4, Shiv Vihar, Phase -5 Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Gurukul Technology for Mobiles At: F-671, 1st Floor, Khajoori Khas Main Opposite Main Bhajanpura Bus Stand, Delhi-110094.   Spice Retail Ltd. At:  S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector 125, Noida-201301, U.P. India	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

21.10.2016 27.04.2018 04.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that on 08.01.2016 he had purchased a mobile phone Spice model S - Life 520 HD white colour bearing IMEI No. 911483900188422, 911483900183430 manufactured by OP2 for an amount of Rs. 5,900/- from Y.K. Telecom, Bhajanpura Delhi-93 which started giving problems within seven months of purchase in the touch auto work function. The above mobile set was deposited on 26.08.2016 by the complainant with the service centre OP2 i.e. OP1 for repairs vide service request (SR) No. 30101901980313. Vide the said SR it was clearly mentioned that OP2 (on behalf of OP1) shall repair and deliver the handset within a reasonable time period and upon intimation, customer should take delivery of handset within 21 working days. However after 21 days, the said mobile set was not returned and every time, the complainant was told that as soon as the mobile set is received duly repaired, the same would be handed over to him. The complainant has further submitted that he has not been given any specific date on which his mobile set would be returned to him. Therefore, the complainant has prayed vide the present complaint before this Forum that an amount of Rs. 5,900/- being the cost of the mobile set should be refunded to him by the OPs alongwith Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him, in addition to Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges.

Complainant has annexed a copy of retail invoice bearingNo. 10123 dated 08.01.2016 towards purchase of mobile for an amount of Rs. 5,900/- from Y.K. Telecom, Bhajanpura Delhi, copy of jobsheet dated 26.08.2016 bearing request No. 30101901G80313, copy of call details and a copy of letter dated 20.10.2016 written by the complainant to manager of service centre of OP1 requesting OP1 to address his long pending grievance of mobile repair which is unresolved at the end of OP1.

2. Notice was issued upon the OPs on 10.11.2016 for appearance before this Forum on 06.12.2016. However OP1 refused the delivery of the notice vide postal remark dated 26.11.2016 and as such was deemed served and proceeded against ex-parte on 16.01.2017. OP2 appeared before this Forum and submitted its written statement wherein OP2 took preliminary objection that the above complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency on its part and that it possess goodwill and establish market and reputation in business and the complainant is trying to blackmail OP2 to make monitory benefit via compensation and as such the same should be dismissed. Further OP2 stated that every genuine handset carries limited warranty of one year against any manufacturing defect, in case of any damage, the limited warranty of handset ceases to exist and since Y.K. Telecom (the dealer) is not an authorized dealer of the OP2, the OP2 cannot be held liable for any act / omission of the said dealer. OP2 further took the plea that it fulfilled its warranty obligations within the limited warranty period and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP2 was filed by the complainant wherein the defence taken by OP2 in the written statement was rebutted.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant exhibiting original invoice of purchase of mobile and jobcard for repair with OP2. But OP2 did not appear before this Forum after March 2017 after filing written statement and despite several opportunities granted to it to file evidence by way of affidavit failed to do so and therefore its right to file the same is closed vide order dated 26.05.2017.
5. Complainant filed written arguments however despite time granted to OP2, OP2 did not appear or file arguments or address orally and therefore its right to argue the matter was closed and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.03.2018.
6. We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and have gone through the documentary evidence placed on record.

From the records, it is made out that the mobile in question went out of order within seven months of purchase while it was under warranty and the OP1 did not return the mobile set to the complainant ever since it was deposited in August 2016 by the complainant for repairs despite clear undertaking to return its repaired within 21 days as mentioned in the jobcard.

7. Therefore, there is clear deficiency of service on the part of OP1 as OP1 failed to repair and return the mobile handset to the complainant duly repaired. We therefore, direct the OPs  as service center and manufacturer jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs. 5,900/- towards cost of the mobile to the complainant in addition to                 Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment of the complainant by the OPs as well as Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation charges within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which both OPs shall be liable jointly and severally  to pay Rs. 12,900/- to the complainant (the total awarded amount) alongwith penal interest @ 9% p.a. thereupon from the date of this order till realization.    
8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on  04.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member