Delhi

East Delhi

CC/275/2017

SACHIN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IMMORTAL INNOVATION - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2020

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. 275/17

 

Shri Sachin Dutt

S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma

R/o 177, New Layal Pur Colony

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 031                            ….Complainant                                              

Vs.    

 

1. M/s. Immortal Innovation Services Pvt. Ltd.

1/15, 1^st Floor, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 26

Laxmi Nagar, Near Lalita Park

Gurudwara Sahib, Delhi – 110 092     

 

2. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

A-18, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road

New Delhi – 110 044                                                      …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 21.07.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 23.01.2020

Judgement Passed on: 31.01.2020

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member))

 

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Sachin Dutt against             M/s. Immortal Innnovation Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (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 the complainant on 07.10.2016, purchased Sony Xperia XA (3GB Ram, 16 GB ROM with IMEI no. 358129074565723 and 358129074765731) for Rs. 17,300/-.  Invoice No. SAI/4501/2016-17 was issued by OP-2. 

Within few days, there were problems with the handset such as no network, no SIM, power key not working and there was a spot on the display.  Even the handset was not accepting handsfree.  On 23.05.2017, the complainant visited OP-1, where the job sheet was issued.  Again, on 15.06.2017, the complainant visited OP-1 with the same issues where he was assured that the issues would be resolved as there was problem with the software. 

Again, on 17.06.2017, the complainant visited OP-1 and asked for refund of the handset as the same was within warranty period.  Job sheet was issued of even date.  The request for refund was declined by customer care executive of OP-2. 

The complainant has stated that his handset was lying with OP-1 and he was constrained to purchase a new mobile phone on 27.07.2017, for Rs. 13,499/-.  The complainant has further stated that there was manufacturing defect in the handset manufactured by OP-2, which could not be repaired by their authorized service centre (OP-1).  Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to refund the cost of the handset i.e. Rs. 17,300/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.    

The complainant has annexed the retail invoice dated 07.10.2016, job sheet dated 23.05.2017 & 17.06.2017 and the retail invoice for purchase of new handset which is of dated 27.07.2017. 

3.        Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2.  Thereafter, written statement was filed on behalf of both OPs, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as that the complainant had purchased the handset after demonstration of features and functions and was aware of warranty terms and conditions.  The complainant had first time approached OP-1 on 23.05.2017 which was almost after 7 and a half months from the date of purchase with the issue of yellow spot on display which was resolved absolutely free of cost.  The visit of complainant on 17.06.2017 has been admitted and it has been further submitted that the issues were resolved immediately and it was the complainant who was not ready to accept the handset. 

It was further submitted that it was the complainant who had not collected the handset from OP-1 and was rather raising unreasonable demands and further the complainant was contacted through a letter dated 13.03.2018 to collect the handset after inspection.   Rest of the contents have also been denied. 

Board Resolution dated 07.02.2014, copy of invoice, warranty Terms and Conditions and letter dated 13.03.2018 have been annexed with WS.

4.        Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint and has relied on the annexures annexed with it. 

           OP-1 and OP-2 did not file evidence by way of affidavit despite several opportunities and stopped appearing.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The handset was purchased on 07.10.2016 and the first time complainant approached the service centre on 23.05.2017 with complaint of “Handfree Problem” the second job sheet is of 17.06.2017, where the complainant had given his handset to OP-1 with complaint of “Others, network blank show, insert SIM show, sometime power key not work, h/s auto reset”.  The handset was under warranty is an admitted fact.  However, OP in their defence have stated that they had intimated the complainant to collect his repaired handset, after they received summons of the present complaint, their defence cannot be considered as they chose not to file their evidence by way of affidavit despite several opportunities even otherwise they have not filed any proof of delivery of the letter dated 13.03.2018 to the complainant. 

It was only after the filing of present complaint, OP-1 and OP-2 have written a letter requesting the complainant to collect the repaired handset which is an afterthought.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP-1 and OP-2 to refund Rs. 8,000/-, being the cost of the handset as the complainant has already used the same for more than 7 months.  When the complainant had been deprived from using the handset since June 2017 due to the deficiency in services on the part of OPs, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be inclusive of litigation expenses. 

           This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not paid, the awarded amount of Rs. 18,000/- 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