Delhi

East Delhi

CC/566/2016

PRADEEP KR. GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LE ECO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2018

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. 566/16

 

Shri Pradeep Kr. Gupta

C/o NMDFC, Ministry of Minority affairs, GOI

First Floor, Core-1, Scope Minar

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

1. Shri Fazil Malik, Service City.

201, 2^nd Floor, Sagar Plaza

Laxmi Nagar, Behind PSK

Near Nirman Vihar Metro Station

New Delhi – 110 092

         

2. Mr. Atul Jain (COO), Le Eco System

Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

Off.: 7^th Floor, Umiya Business bay

Cessna Business Park

11 & 13/2, Kadubeesanahalli Village

Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli

Bangalore, India – 560 103                                              …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 25.10.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 15.05.2018

Judgement Passed on: 16.05.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta against Shri Fazil Malik, Service City (OP-1) and Mr. Atul Jain (COO), Le Eco System Technology 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 Pradeep Kumar Gupta purchased a mobile phone Le Eco Le 2 (32 GB Rose Gold) online through Flipkart.com vide invoice no. #CHN_PUZHAL_120160600159972 on 28.06.2016 by paying a sum of Rs. 10,798/-.   

            It was stated that in the first month of purchasing, the mobile started creating many problems for which the complainant handed over the mobile at the service centre (OP-1) for repair on 19.07.2016 vide job sheet no. 201607190128 and was assured to return the phone in a week, but OP failed to return the phone even after one month.  The complainant approached to Le Eco System Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and requested for delivery of the said phone, but all in vain.   

            It was also stated that complainant did not receive his repaired phone even after three months.  He sent a legal notice on 09.09.2016 which was never replied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest till final disposal of this matter.   

3.         Dasti notice was taken by the complainant.  OP-1 refused to accept the notice.  None have appeared on behalf of OP-1, hence they were proceeded Ex-parte.

            Notice of the complaint was given to OP-2.  They appeared, but stopped appearing during the course of proceedings.  Hence, they have also been proceeded ex-parte.

4.         The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit where he has examined himself.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of Flipkart purchasing on 28.06.2016 (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of job sheet (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of apology letter through email (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of legal notice (Ex.CW-1/4) and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of complaint   (Ex.CW-1/6) and evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.CW-1/7).

5.         We have heard the complainant in person and have perused the material placed on record.  From the documents got exhibited in the testimony of the complainant such as Ex.CW-1/1, it is evident that complainant purchased Le Eco Le 2 handset for an amount of Rs. 10,798/- and Ex.CW-1/2 show that he gave it at the service centre viz. Service City.  The repair order Ex.CW-1/2 shows that the display was showing lines.  Ex.CW-1/3 is an email where apology for delay has been conveyed.  Thus, from the testimony of the complainant coupled with the documents exhibited in his testimony which has gone unrebutted, it is evident that complainant have not received his handset which was given by him at the service centre Service City (OP-1).  By not returning the handset after repair, the Service City (OP-1) have been deficient in service.  When there has been deficiency on the part of OP-1, certainly, they are liable for the same. 

            There is no deficiency on the part of Mr. Atul Jain (COO), Le Eco System Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) as no allegation has been put against them.

            By not returning the handset to the complainant and keeping it for a long time, it has caused mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.  Thus, we order that Service City (OP-1) shall return the handset in working condition with six months’ warranty, within 45 days from the receipt of the order.  If the handset is not returned within the stipulated period, Service City (OP-1) shall pay an amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the handset.  They shall further pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering.  This includes the cost of litigation also. 

            This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 15,000/- 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