DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.192/2016

Mr. Sachin Kumar,

Dairy No.26, 4^th Floor,

Room No.-18, Maksoodpur,

Dairy Firm, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

1. Jumbo Electronics

Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

S-228-A,2^nd Floor Ambience Mall,

Plot No. 2, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase-2, New Delhi-110070.

2. Vaishno Communication

T-136/1, Ist Floor, Shivalik Road,

Begumpur, Opp. Liberty Showroom

Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017

3. GiONEE

Office address : B-9, Blockl No.B-1, G.F.

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area,

Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.                  ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution        : 21.06.16        Date of Order        : 07.12.18   

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

Brief statement of the complainant is:-

1.         The complainant, Sachin Kumar, purchased a Ginoee S-6 mobile phone on 29.03.2016 from the Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP-1. On 20.05.2016, the complainant noticed that there were number of problems with the phone. The battery of the phone was swollen, phone on its own was getting on and off, there was loudspeaker problem with the phone and phone was getting hanged frequently.

1.1     It is averred by the complainant that he immediately contacted the OP and informed the salesman regarding the problem he was facing problem with the phone. The salesmen suggested him to contact Vaishno Communication (OP-2). The complainant on 02.06.2016 went to OP-2 and informed him about all the problems of the phone and the salesman told him to come back after 3-4 days and collect the repaired phone. On 08.06.2016, he again went to the service station and was told that the spare parts of the phone had not arrived, it will take another 3-4 days for the parts to reach the service station.

1.2     The complainant on 11.06.2016 again went to the service centre and was informed that the parts of the phone were still not available. The complaint was asked to call up the customer care and inform them about his problem. When he called customer care he was told that the day the phone is taken by the service centre within 15 days of the date, the phone is rectified and returned back to the customers but the complainant kept calling them again and again and finally on 16.06.2016 he was told that the parts had been dispatched now and he will receive his phone by 22.06.2016.

1.3     The complainant next averred that the complainant despite sending reminders and visiting service station again and again, the issue regarding his phone was neither resolved nor was the phone given back to him. Aggrieved by these circumstances, the complainant approached the Forum with prayer that his phone be replaced with a new phone and OPs be directed to compensate the complainant with Rs.30,000/- for the harassment and mental agony.

2.       OP-1 resisted the complaint on the grounds that OP-1 is a mere retailer, having a showroom wherein he keeps the products of Gionee Company. OP-1 gave full support to the complainant and provided all the information regarding the service centre. It is next averred that OP-1 does not operate any service centre and warranty of the product is covered by the manufacturer. OP-1 just facilitates the customer by making available the products and give assistance to the customer regarding the particular product. OP-1 being a dealer/retailer has provided all the services required by him. Hence, there is no deficiency of service qua OP-1.

3.       OP-2 Vaishno Communication and OP-3 GiONEE were proceeded exparte on 23.01.2017.

4.       Evidence by way of affidavit is filed by complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. T. Karthikeyan, Manager Legal has been filed on behalf of OP No.1.

5. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP-1.
6. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
7. It is observed that the complainant purchased a S-6 Gold Gionee Mobile phone from OP-1 on 29.03.2016 by paying Rs.19,500/-. Few days later the phone started having issues like battery problem, auto on-off, loudspeaker problem, hanging problem, there was no sound in the loudspeaker and charging was also slow etc. The complainant submitted his phone to the authorized service centre Vaishno Communication (OP-2) on 02.06.2016 and was delivered back to him on 21.06.2016. Job-sheets regarding the same are annexed as Annexure-B and Annexure-C. After taking the delivery of the phone, he realized that certain problems had still remained unresolved. The complainant further complained to Ginoee Care on 04.11.2016 and received the SMS from Gionee Care on 05.11.2016 wherein he was told that his handset will be repaired on chargeable basis and he approved the same. Annexure-E i.e. SMS on 05.11.2016 are reproduced as under :-

“Thanks for visiting Gionee Care. Your handset will be repair on chargeable basis approx estimated amount is 3741.49 All taxes are extra as applicable.”

“Thanks for approving Approx. estimate of Rs.3741.49. We will share estimated time of closer very soon. All taxes are extra as applicable.”

8. It is evident from the discussion above that the complainant had purchased the phone from OP-1 wherein he was given the service required. Thereafter for the problems in the phone the complainant approached OP-2. After the 1^st repair done in June 2016, the complainant alleges the phone to be continuing with defects. But he took the phone in November,2016 that is about 5 months later. This Forum does not find merit in the averment that previous problem had persisted for this period because complainant has not pleaded that he could not use the phone for these 5 months. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in November,2016 complainant went to OP-2 for a different issue with the phone. This time he consented for repairs on chargeable basis as is established from the SMSes exchanged. Having consented for repairs on chargeable basis without protest, complainant cannot now turn around and allege deficiency in service for having been charged for repairs.
9. OP-3 being the manufacturer, the complainant has not provided any evidence against OP-3 as to any manufacturing defect in the phone. The complainant has miserably failed to produce any evidence against the OPs. Hence the complaint is dismissed being frivolous and devoid of merits with no order as to costs.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 07.12.18.