The complainant wrote to Gurgaon Service Centre a letter dated 01.02.2017 informing his grievance, which was received by the addressee on 08.02.2017 but they also did not take any step.
The date of the order for the mobile handset is 04.10.2016, the invoice date is 08.10.2016. The complainant has given it to OP service Centre on 16.01.2017 well within the period of 01 (one year). The Service job-sheet dated 16.01.2017 shows an estimated cost of Repair of Rs.1,200/-. Hence is the case of complainant.
The OP no.1 entered appearance on 18.05.2017 and filed a petition praying for time to file written version. Prayer was allowed for time so for as many as 45 (forty five) days by the commission. But the OP no.1 miserably failed to make right use of the time he sought for, nor did he took any further step. The case proceeded ex-parte against OP no. 1.
Notice was duly sent to the OP no. 2 being the Head Office of the OP no. 1 but was returned by the postal personnel with endorsement unserved with comment dated 08.05.2017 as “left”. The complainant filed a petition on 19.11.2018 to expunge the name of the OP no. 2 on the ground that he had no claim against OP no. 2 plus as no change will be there in the complaint, if name of OP no. 2 is strike out. The Commission allowed the petition of the complainant and expunged the name of the OP no. 2 from the complaint on 18.06.2019. Thus the case proceeded uncontested.
The complainant filed his evidence and written notes on argument on the date of hearing of argument and oral argument was also heard.
To prove his case the complainant has filed the following documents:-
- Certificate of mobile voucher as Annex-A.
- Receipt of the handset as Annex-B.
- Communications through mails as Annex-C & D.
-
- Petitioner’s Docket no. 138491 as Annex-E.
- Two acknowledgements as Annex-F & G.
Now, on the basis of discussion above the three points came up for determination:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, and
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
Section 2(d)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines “Consumer” as a person who buys a goods or hires a service for a consideration. The tax invoice dated 08.10.2016 amounting to Rs.11,699/- shows that the complainant Sushil Kumar Singh is not the purchaser, rather one Priyanka Singh is the purchaser. The purchaser as per the said tax-invoice (Annex-A) is neither a complainant nor a co-complainant even.
However, a consumer as per definition under the said section includes an user also and in the job sheet the complainant has been mentioned as customer which has handed over the mobile set for removing defects and this shows that complainant was using the mobile set and there being no doubt that he has been mentioned as customer, so the complainant is a consumer.
Thus the point No. 1 is answered in affirmative.
Point nos. 2 & 3.
From the complaint & evidence, it appears on 04.10.2016 one LENOVO VIBE K5 mobile set was purchased from OP no. 2. The said handset costs Rs.11,141.90/- as price plus Rs.557.10/- as Tax vide Tax invoice dated 08.10.2016 issued by OP no. 2 i.e total amount Rs.12,699/-. But after few months, the mobile set got some charging problems and the complainant had to hand over the same to the OP no. 1 being the service centre of OP no. 2 on 16.01.2017 for making it good/serviceable and job-sheet being no.
597504886/170116/10-M dt. 16.01.2017 with the target delivery date on the same day i.e 16.01.2017 was issued. But same was not made good/serviceable.
Finding no initiative from the end of the OP no.1, the complainant lodged a complaint against OP no. 1’s (service Centre) through e-mail at the address of The complainant wrote to Gurgaon Service Centre a letter dated 01.02.2017 informing his grievance, which was received by the addressee on 08.02.2017 but they also did not take any step.
The date of the order for the mobile handset is 04.10.2016, the invoice date is 08.10.2016. The complainant has given it to OP service Centre on 16.01.2017 well within the period of 01 (one year) which is warranty period. The Service job-sheet dated 16.01.2017 shows an estimated cost of Repair of Rs. 1,200/- was demanded but with no good result.
As the mobile set was found defective and was within it’s warranty period and has not been repaired or returned to the complainant, so there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 being the service centre. Further the mobile set has costs of Rs.12,699/- in total, so complainant is entitled for this amount and also for mental pain, agony & harassment and litigation costs from the OP no.1. Thus point nos. 2 & 3 also succeeds in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it ordered,
That the Complaint case no. 30 (S) 2017 is allowed ex-parte with costs. The OP no.1 is directed to return Rs.12,699/- to the complainant as costs of mobile phone. The OP no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental pain, agony & harassment to the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs. The OP no.1 is further directed to pay the above mentioned amount within 45 days from the date of this order to the complainant and in default
the amount shall bear interest @ 18 p.a. since the date of this order till the date of realization. In default the complainant shall be entitled to execute the order as per law.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of costs.
