Delhi

North East

CC/203/2018

Sh. Pankaj Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurukul Technology - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2019

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. 203/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Pankaj Aggarwal C-41/Z-2, C-Block Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.	Complainant
	Versus
1.	Gurukul Technology F-397, Khajoori Khas, Near Rajiv Bajaj Showroom Opp. Bhajanpura Bus stand, Delhi-110094.   IVOOMi Innovation Pvt Ltd D-11/55, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085.	Opposite Parties

 

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

18.09.2018 01.10.2019 01.10.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased IVOOMi mobile handset model No. WK10931 manufactured by OP2 on 20.12.2017 from Flipkart, online portal for a sum of Rs. 2,999/- inclusive of IGST. However, the handset started giving problems of heating and display July 2018 onwards for which the subject handset was deposited by the complainant with OP1, Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of OP2 on 11.07.2018 with problems of LCD flickering, dot on display and touch malfunction and OP1 had assured the complainant of repairing the same and returning it within next three days. However, OP1 neither repaired the handset nor returned the same to the complainant despite several follow-ups by way of visits and telephonic calls to OP2’s head office and service centre by the complainant as against assurance given by OP2 of timely resolution of problems and proper service given in event of any defect arising in the handset. The complainant corresponded with the customer care of OP2 in September 2018 vide e-mails enquiring about progress of his handset repair and was informed that the delay was due to a spare part in shortage which needs to be replaced in the said handset and assurance to the complainant to return the same once the said part is made available. Lastly the complainant, vide legal notice dated 09.09.2018 to OPs demanded that his handset be returned repaired within three days of receipt of this notice but to no avail. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to initiate legal proceedings against the OPs vide the present complaint praying for issuance of directions to replace the handset alongwith a brand new one with complete accessories and extended warranty and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of delay / negligence and deficiency of service and Rs. 20,000/- for mental and physical harassment and work loss to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.         

Complainant has attached copy of invoice dated 20.12.2017 issued by Flipkart, online portal for purchase of subject handset from OP2 seller/ manufacturer for Rs. 2,999/-, copy of jobsheet no. IVASPDL0030063 dated 11.07.2018 generated by OP1 for submission of the subject handset for repairs with Warranty Status ‘IN’, copy of e-mails correspondence exchanged between complainant and OP2 between 09.09.2018 to 10.09.2018 regarding non repair of mobile, spare part issue and service of legal notice by the complainant to OPs.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 25.09.2018. Notice sent to OP1 was returned vide postal remarks dated 11.10.2018 as ‘Refused’ and Dasti notice to OP2 taken by the complainant was also ‘Refused’ and therefore both were deemed served under Section 28(3A) of CPA. None appeared on behalf of OPs and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.02.2019.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of his grievance against the OPs and exhibited the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the complaint.

Complainant during the course of oral arguments submitted that the handset has been lying with the OP1 since its submission on 11.07.2018 and both OPs have never sent any status update regarding repairs thereof while it was still under warranty period and prayed for relief claimed.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and have perused the documents placed on record. Complainant’s submission of non repair of the subject mobile phone by OP1 and non return thereof since 11.07.2018 (date of deposit) has gone unrebutted due to willful abstention on the part of OP1 to attend / appear before this Forum by refusal of Dasti service of summons and therefore adverse inference in drawn against OP1 in this regard. OP2 also failed to appear and put forth its defence for selling a handset which functioned barely for 6-7 months from purchase while it was still under warranty and explain why the part was not made available for repairs of the subject handset since as per e-mail dated 10.09.2018 by its customer care to the complainant, the part was already delivered to OP1 on 01.08.2018 vide DTDC courier but no commitment was given by OP1 of repairs of the handset in contradiction. Both parties are vicarious liable for each other’s acts of omission and commission. Therefore, according to us, both OP1 and OP2 are guilty of deficiency of service qua the complainant more so that neither of them appeared or rebutted the allegation made by the complainant or put forth their defence. Admittedly, the mobile phone purchased in December 2017 was deposited with OP1 in July 2018 with LCD flickering and defective display and touch never to be repaired / returned to the complainant as facts stand unrebutted.
5.  We therefore direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to replace the defective IVOOMi WK10931 handset of the complainant with a brand new handset with fresh warranty of one year with all accessories in original sealed box within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6.  We further direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for negligence, deficiency of service, mental and physical harassment inclusive of litigation charges.
7.  Let the order be complied by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   
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 01.10.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member