Delhi

East Delhi

CC/286/2014

MADHU GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOME SHOP 18 - Opp.Party(s)

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       286 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                21/03/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               08/03/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        09/03/2017  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mrs Madhu Gupta, adult   

w/o   Sh. Ashok Gupta 

R/o  181, Samrat Apartment,

Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 110096 ………….………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Home Shop 18

RO- FCA 16A, Film City

Noida, UP 201301

 

2 M/s Air Communication Services   

G 19/5A, Rajori Garden

New Delhi 110027 

 

3 M/s  Raja Communication

D 64, Vikas Marg, Delhi 92……………………………………………………………Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased Airtyme Picasso DG50 mobile handset through online portal of OP1 vide order no 51329453 on dated 01/12/2012 for a sum of Rs 5699/ through OP2 having their agreement for supplying their products to the customers marked as Ex CW1/1.

After some time said mobile developed problem so complainant contacted OP3 for rectifying problems. But OP3 asked for service charges Rs 150 with replacement of defective parts if any. Complainant refused to pay and lodged complaint to OP2 through toll free no. After contacting no. of times to OP2, no service was provided by OP2.

Thereafter, complainant sent legal notice to all OPs for refund of the cost paid Rs 5699/ with compensation as marked here CW1/2 & 3. Later OP1 sent a cheque of Rs 500/ for repair charges as full and final settlement letter marked here CW1/3 & 4. Aggrieved by the act of OPs, complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of mobile cost with compensation Rs 30,000/- for harassment. 

After receiving notices, OP1 submitted joint written statement denying all the allegations pertaining to non offering of services and product having manufactured defects. It was also submitted that complainant did not submit any evidence of OP3 as he ever went for repair in the warranty tenure. Considering the status of their customer as senior citizen, OP1 sent a cheque of Rs 500/ vide cheque no. 291167 dated 03/12/2013 drawn on YES bank which was cashed by the complainant. In addition to this, OP1 had sent gift vouchers of same amount for further redeemable by complainant on next shopping with OP1 as gesture of goodwill. Hence this complaint had no merit and may be dismissed.

Complainant submitted his rejoinder but did not submit any evidence on affidavit. OP1 submitted evidences on affidavit through Md Aditi Mittal as authorized representative through their special power of attorney and stated that the said product had no manufacture defect hence there was no liability against OP2. As complainant did not take service of their authorized service centre as OP3, still OP1 had given service charges amount Rs 500/- through cheque which was utilized by the complainant. Besides this, OP1 had also given gift vouchers of same amount.  

Arguments were heard from both the parties and counsel of OP. The complainant in person submitted during the course of argument that OP had offered a sum of Rs 2000/- and OP opposed the allegation. Order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant purchased the said mobile and developed some problems in warranty period, but did not take services from OP3 as no evidence was on record except legal notice to OPs which does not satisfy the cause of action arisen against OP3. But OP1 had given service charges amount of Rs 500/- to complainant and the same was encashed also itself proves that the product had some defects which was not repairable, besides giving gift vouchers of same amount (Rs 500/). Though the amount has been received by the complainant without any protest proves that complainant was satisfied and do not want any further compensation. More so there was no evidence of offer ever made by OP for Rs 2000/-.

So, we come to the conclusion that though the complaint is devoid of merit, but based on the principle of natural justice, we direct OP1 to give compensation of Rs 1000/- after complainant returns the gift vouchers within 30 days from the receiving of this order. There shall be no further order to cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                            

 

                                                     Shri Sukhdev Singh President