Punjab

Sangrur

CC/383/2016

Bhupesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iberry India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Sahni

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 383                                                                                         

                                                                Instituted on:   06.05.2016                                                                                

                                                                  Decided on:    21.10.2016

 

Bhupesh Gupta son of Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, resident of B-1/263, Mata Rani Street, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. Iberry India, Building No.4, Second Lane Beach,

Chennai, through its Managing Director;

2. Digital Estore, Kamaraj Chennai, through its Manager/ proprietor;
3. National Computers Outside Sunami Gate, Near Guru Nanak School, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner ( authorized service centre of Iberry);
4. eBay India Private Limited, Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway , Goregaon ( East) Mumbai, through its Managing Director.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                     Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.                      

 

FOR THE  OPP. PARTY  No.3      :     Shri Sarabjit Singh in person.                        

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1,2&4      :              Exparte.                         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Bhupesh Gupta, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online placed an order  of one Iberry Auxus Tunner, Virtual Reality Smart Phone, Remote Function, 3GB RAM-8 Core mobile set  with OP no.4 and  an amount of Rs.14990/- was paid by the complainant  to OPs. After receiving the mobile set, the same stopped working and not on, for which the complainant the service centre i.e. OP No.3 who after  checking the mobile set told the complainant that the defect is  not curable and advised to return the mobile set but OP no.3 did not issue any job sheet. Thereafter the complainant again and again requested the OP No.4 to replace the defective mobile set with new one or to refund the price of the mobile set but the OP No.4 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and later on OP no.4 rejected the claim of the complainant.  Then the complainant approached OP No.3 and OP No.3 issued job sheet dated 12.04.2016 to the complainant.  The OP no.3 told that the mobile set is in dead condition and is not repairable.  The complainant approached the OPs and requested  them to refund purchase price of the mobile  set but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase price  of   mobile set i.e. Rs. 14990/-  along with interest @18% per annum  from the date of purchase till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service the OPs no. 1,2, and 4 did not appear and as such they were proceeded exparte.  The OP No.3 had appeared through Shri Sarabjit Singh in person.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.3 has tendered documents Ex.OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2 and closed evidence.

4.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3, we find that he online placed an order of one Iberry Auxus Tunner, Virtual Reality Smart Phone, Remote Function, 3GB RAM-8 Core mobile set  with OP no.4 and  an amount of Rs.14990/- was paid by the complainant  to OPs which is evident from order statement  dated 29.02.2016 Ex.C-6 on record. It has been alleged by the complainant that after receiving the mobile set, the same stopped working and not on, for which the complainant approached the service centre i.e. OP No.3 who after  checking the mobile set told the complainant that the defect is  not curable and advised to return the mobile set but OP no.3 did not issue any job sheet. Thereafter the complainant again and again requested the OP No.4 to replace the defective mobile set with new one or to refund the price of the mobile set but the OP No.4 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and later on OP no.4 rejected the claim of the complainant.  Then the complainant again approached OP No.3 and OP No.3 issued job sheet dated 12.04.2016 to the complainant which is Ex.C-5 on record. It has been further alleged by the complainant that  the OP no.3 told that the mobile set is  in dead condition and is not repairable .  The complainant approached  the OPs  and requested  them to either replace  the mobile set or to refund purchase price of the mobile  set in question.  

5.             The complainant has produced on record report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh  along with his affidavit Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 respectively wherein he only stated that after  thorough checking, as per his knowledge he found that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and due to that reason the mobile became  dead and is not  in a working condition and the said problem is not curable  one.  But, after carefully perusing the report of the expert along with his affidavit we are of the considered opinion that the expert has only stated in his report that there is manufacturing  in the mobile set in question which is not curable one, but surprisingly he has not opined in  his report  as to what and how there is defect in the mobile set which is manufacturing one and  is not curable.

6.             Another aspect of the case is that the OP No.3 in its reply has admitted  that  the complainant has approached him with defective mobile set  and after his inspection he found that the mobile set in question has to be sent to the Service Level 4 at Delhi  and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant but he refused to send the same at Delhi and he ( complainant)  had received  back the set from him. The OP No.3 has further stated that he is/was ready to send the  mobile set to the company for necessary repair.  Here, it has come to our notice that the OP no.3 has not stated anywhere in its reply that there is manufacturing defect in it which is not curable one rather he is ready to get the mobile set repaired from the company.     

7.             In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove  that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question rather OP No.3 was/is ready to get the mobile set repaired from the company . Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no.3 to get the mobile set of the complainant repaired from the company to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within three weeks time from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation being mental pain agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.        

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from  the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                October 21, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)            ( K.C.Sharma)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Member                 Member                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-