Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/188

SPICE RETAIL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

IT M UNIVERSITY - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 12.04.2017

 

 

First Appeal No.188/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 12.12.2012 passed in Complaint Case No.171/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi)

 

 

M/s. Spice Retail Limited,

19A, 19B, Sector -125,

NOida, UP – 201301   

                                                              ….Appellant

 

Versus

 

ITM University,

Sector 23A, Huda,

Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                                           ….Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

  

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II), Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in CC No.171/2012 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.57,600/- to the respondent/complainant.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that the respondent/complainant on 23.05.2010 had purchased two blackberry mobiles phone from the appellant/OP for total consideration of Rs.57,600/- including the one year extended warranty for each mobile at Rs.1699/-. The respondent/complainant was given information by the representation of the appellant/OP that as per clause 4 of the conditions of the warranty, the respondent/complainant would be entitled to 50% cost of the mobile phone and the same was agreed to by the respondent/complainant. It was alleged that one phone having IMEI No.359564031779491 got damaged and the matter was reported to Rani Bagh Centre of the appellant/OP on 10.11.2011 for repair/replacement of the same as per the extended warranty taken by the respondent/complainant. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant demanded the amount which was agreed to pay paid by the appellant/OP. However, the appellant/OP demanded the original copy of the Hot Spot Care Pack bearing No.10757. Unfortunately, the respondent/complainant did not have the original with him and as such his claim was rejected. Therefore, he filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum making claim for award of Rs.28,800/- in his favour being the cost of the instrument and also prayed for interest on the aforesaid amount.
3. The claim was contested by the appellant/OP by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that the respondent/complainant had to produce the original Hot Spot Care Pack as the customer copy of the agreement was supplied to him and since he has misplaced the same he is not entitled for the benefit of Hot Spot Care Pack.
4. After hearing the parties, Ld. District Forum held that there was admission on the part of the appellant/OP that agreement had taken place between the parties and in these circumstances none production of agreement by the respondent/complainant was not material. Accordingly, Ld. District Forum directed the appellant/OP to pay Rs.57,600/- cost of one of the instruments. 
5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/OP.
6. Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that the only grievance of the appellant/OP is that the cost of one instrument is Rs.28,800/-, and Ld. District Forum has awarded wrongly awarded Rs.57,600/-, which is the cost of two instruments. It is contended that though in the order it has been mentioned that the respondent/complainant is entitled to cost of one of the instruments, however, amount awarded is of two instruments.
7. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant. In fact respondent/complainant has not been appeared for the past so many dates of hearing.
8. We have perused the material on record including the record of the District Forum.
9. In the present case the respondent/complainant had purchased two blackberry phones for Rs.57,600/- as per invoice placed on record. Cost of one of the phone is Rs.28,800/-. Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP has taken us to relevant clause of the agreement as per which the respondent/complainant is entitled to 50% of the price of the product. The said clause is reproduced as under:

             

“4. Replacement:

HOT SPOT reserves the right to replace any part at free of charge which are covered under the Agreement, thereof which may be found to be fault or in need of investigation as to whether faults may exists in their operation and any such parts or component replaced by HOT SPOT during Care Pack shall become *************

             

10. In the complaint filed before the Ld. District Forum, the prayer made is for award of Rs.28,800/- i.e. cost of one instrument. Even in the impugned order Ld. District Forum has awaded cost of one instrument, however, whiling awarding the sum cost of both the instruments have been referred. In these circumstances, we modify the impugned order and award a sum of Rs.28,800/- i.e. cost of one instrument to the respondent/complainant. No other condition is interfered with. Impugned order is modified accordingly.
11. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  The record of Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith.

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri