Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/276/2023

Rajin Solanki - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jeeves Consumer - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

26 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 276 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 14.09.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 26.03.2024

 

 

Rajin Solanki son of Sh. Rajender Singh R/o village Dharanbas Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd., Buildings Alyssa, Begolia & Clover, Embassy Tech village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli village, Banglore-560103.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.              

                    Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a mobile phone, Samsung F23 having IMEI number 352740903507437, in a sum of Rs.13,028/- on 05.08.2022 through flipkart online shopping.  Complainant alleged that the mobile phone was covered for accidental damage by paying Rs.799/- as premium. It is submitted that due to some defect in the mobile phone, it was replaced by OP with new IMEI number 352740903507130 which received on 17.08.2022.  On 16.07.2023 complainant lodged a complaint with Op company and in reply to that, vide e-mail dated 17.07.2023 Op stated that there is mismatch of IMEI number and thus OP company charged Rs.1000/- from complainant. However, despite that the mobile was returned by OP on 31.08.2023 on account of mismatch of IMEI number and on the pretext that warranty cover of the mobile phone has expired on 05.08.2023. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions to Ops either to replace the defective mobile phone with new one or to refund its cost, further to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and  also to pay Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.                 Upon notice, Op appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts and mis-joinder of necessary party.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had taken the complete protection plan from the answering Op. The OP denied for sell of the mobile phone, however, guarantee/warranty was provided by the answering OP. It is submitted that the Samsung brand is a separate entity from the answering OP. It is stated that due to mismatch of IMEI number, the answering OP was unable to provide any services to the complainant. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for  dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant in evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-41 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for complainant has made a statement that written statement on behalf of OP may be read into their evidence and closed the same.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for OP, and complainant, as well as gone through the record minutely.

6.                 From purchase bill (Ex. C-3), it is clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question in a sum of Rs.13,028/- having IMEI No.352740903507437. The mobile phone was having complete mobile protection cover vide document Ex. C-5.  As per documents Ex. C-12  and  Ex. C-34 the mobile phone on replacing was having IMEI No.352740903507130.

7.                 The pleadings of OP is that it could not provide services to the complainant as there was mis-match of IMEI number of the mobile phone. From document Ex. C-13, it is clear that it was well within knowledge of OP that the mobile phone was replaced and having a new IMEI number but despite that they did not take any action towards rectifying the defects of the mobile phone.

8.                 In view of the above, we have observed that the OP company deliberately did not provide services to the complainant which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part which caused mental and physical harassment to complainant besides monetary loss. Hence, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.13,028/- (Rs. Thirteen thousand twenty eight) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization subject to return of the old mobile phone.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Seven thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand) as litigation expenses.

                     In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced.

Dated:26.03.2024.