Delhi

East Delhi

CC/401/2015

DAIRY BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

I BERRY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 401/15

 

Ms. Daisy bansal

W/o Shri Rachin Bansal

R/o F-11/29A, Krishna Nagar

Near DESU Office, Vijay Chowk

Delhi – 110 051                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. I Berry India

Off,\.: Building # 4, 4/42

Second Lane Beach

Chennai – 600 001

         

Raja Communications

Off.: U-157, 1^st Floor

Shakarpur, Vikas Marg

New Delhi – 110 092                                                       …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 29.05.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 15.05.2018

Judgement Passed on: 16.05.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Daisy Bansal against IBerry India (OP-1) and Raja Communications (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Daisy Bansal bought an Auxus Nuclea X OCTA CORE 1.7 GHz MT6592 5” HD Multicore GPU 1 GB RAM OTG IBerry mobile phone from OP-1 for an amount of Rs. 12,990/- which was delivered on 05.06.2014. 

            It was stated that on 06.06.2014, complainant wrote an email to   OP-1 stating that the back camera of the phone was not working and the sound quality of the phone was poor.  On 07.06.2014, OP-1 asked to re-install the firmware and update the status.  Complainant complied with the same; however, the problem still persisted.  She made multiple communications, but no satisfactory reply was given by them.         

            It was also stated that on 26.06.2014, IBerry India (OP-1) confirmed that they have received the product and working on it to remove the snags.  The information was further confirmed on 28.06.2014 and on 01.07.2014, OP-1 approved to replace the phone as per escalation.

            It was also stated that the complainant received the product on 08.07.2014, but the problem still remained.  IBerry India (OP-1) insisted on reinstalling the firmware which did little towards the manufacturing defects of the phone.  She again voiced her problem to IBerry India (OP-1) and the phone was again picked up on 23.07.2014, but they did not give any satisfactory response.  When she asked for refund on 06.08.2014, she received a reply that “Kindly understand that refund is not possible as per our warranty terms if the issue can be resolved at the service center level.”

            She again submitted the device to RV Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,            Raja Communications (OP-2) on 18.08.2014 who noted in the job sheet “Can’t power on” and the device was still lying with them.  It has been stated that she has not received the handset from OP-2. 

            She sent a legal notice on 09.09.2016 which was never replied.  Thus, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest till final disposal of the matter.   

3.         Notice of the complaint was served to OPs.  Shri Harmeet Singh for OP-2 appeared, but stopped appearing during the course of proceedings.  None appeared on behalf of OP-1.  Hence, OP-1 as well as OP-2 were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where she has examined herself.  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

5.         We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the documents placed on record such as job sheet issued by OP-2, it is evident that the handset was having problem showing as “Can’t Power on”.  This job sheet is of dated 18.08.2014 and the handset was purchased on 08.07.2014. 

            The problem which has come in the handset was immediately after a period of one month.  When there was a problem in the handset which was not got repaired and returned by OP-2, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of OP-2 as well as OP-1.

            By not returning the handset to the complainant and keeping it for a long time, it has caused mental pain and suffering for which she has to be compensated.  Thus, we order that Raja Communications (OP-2) shall return the handset in working condition with six months’ warranty, within   45 days from the receipt of the order.  If the handset is not returned within the stipulated period, Raja Communications (OP-2) and IBerry India (OP-1) shall jointly pay an amount of Rs. 12,990/- to the complainant towards cost of the handset.  They shall further pay an amount of s. 7,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering.  This includes the cost of litigation also. 

            This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 19,990/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President