Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/24

HEMANT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

I BERRY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 07.01.2016

Complaint Case. No.24/16                                                     Date of order: 03.04.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Hemant Kumar Goswami, M-933 Mangol Puri, New Delhi-110083                                                                                                                              Complainant

VERSUS

I Berry India-Karna C/O Pro Connect Supply Chain Solution Ltd., SY. No 102/1 Adakamaranhalli Village Dasanapura, Hobli, Makali Post, Bangalore, Karnataka-562123                                                                                          Opposite party no. 1

Dhawan Communication, D-Block  Mangol Puri, New Dehi      

Opposite party no. 2

Om Communication, WZ-247, B-1, F/F, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 659 & 660, of Sony Service Centre, Near Uttam Nagar Metro Station East, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059                                                                                               Opposite party no. 3

I Berry India, Building no. 4, Second Lane Beach, Chennai-600001, India

Opposite party no. 4

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT 

            The present complaint is filed by Hemant kumar Goswami named above herein after referred as the complainant under section -12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Briefly as stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset of make “I Berry Auxus Prime P8000” online through I Berry Karna herein after referred as the opposite party no. 1 for sale consideration of Rs. 14990/- on 10.09.2015. The mobile handset was delivered to the complainant on 20.09.2015. The mobile handset is manufactured by the opposite party no. 4. The mobile had usual warranty of one year. The sim slots of the mobile handset were not working simultaneously. The complainant communicated with the opposite party no. 4. Who told the complainant to visit authorized service center for redressal of his grievance. The complainant deposited the mobile handset with the opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2015 for repairs. The mobile handset after fifteen days was returned to the complainant. But the fault of the mobile handset was corrected.  The complainant informed the opposite party no. 2. They told him to visit another service center the opposite party no. 3. The complainant deposited the mobile handset for repairs within warranty with the opposite party no.3. But the opposite party no. 3 is unable to repair the mobile handset and same problem persists. The complainant communicated the problem to the opposite party no.4. But the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. The opposite parties sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties no.1 and 4 to refund Rs. 14,990/- cost of mobile handset and pay Rs.20,000/-  as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Notice of the complainant was sent to the opposite parties. None appeared on their behalf, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.2016.

            When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence, he tendered in evidence his affidavit dated 23.03.2016 narrating facts of the complaint. He relied up on copy of retail invoice no. SD8B66/15-16/18 dated 10.09.2015 and copies of emails. The complainant in his affidavit submitted that the mobile was having two sim card facility. But both the sim cards were not working simultaneously. The opposite parties failed to remove the defect despite the mobile handset has usual warranty of one year. The opposite parties have sold a defective mobile handset.

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

            From perusal of the affidavit of the complainant and documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that he purchased one mobile handset “I Berry Auxus Prime P8000” online through opposite party no. 1 manufactured by opposite party no.4 for sale consideration of Rs. 14990/- on 10.09.2015. The mobile handset developed fault and was given for repairs within warranty to the opposite parties no.2 and 3. The handset was returned to the complainant without removal the fault to the satisfaction of the complainant.

            The affidavit of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted version of the complainant. The complainant from his affidavit and documents has been able to show that he purchased one mobile handset “I Berry Auxus Prime P8000” online through opposite party no. 1 manufactured by opposite party no.4 for sale consideration of Rs. 14990/- on 10.09.2015. Both sim slots of the mobile were not working simultaneously from the beginning was faulty. He deposited the mobile handset for repairs within warranty with the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. But they are unable to repair the complainant’s mobile handset to his satisfaction. The complainant also communicated with opposite party no.4 but to no effect. The complainant is deprived of use of mobile handset and suffered loss of cost of the mobile. Hence he is entitled for compensation. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

            In light of above discussion and observations the complaint succeeds. We direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 14,990/- cost of mobile handset with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of the complaint till actual realization and pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

Order pronounced on : 03.04.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                            (R.S.  BAGRI)                       MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT