DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 119/2017
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. POOJA GUPTA,
D/o SH. POORAN CHAND GUPTA,
R/o H. No. 58, 1ST FLOOR,
INDRA VIHAR, DELHI-110009. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.MANAV COMMUNICATION,
(THROUGH ITS PROP.),
2530, LOWER GROUND, HUDSON LANE,
KINGSWAY CAMP, GTB NAGAR, DELHI-110009.
2. LE ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,
(THROUGH ITS CEO/M.D.),
UMIYA BUSINESS BAY, TOWER-I, II, 13/2,
CESSBA BUSINESS PARK,
SARRAJPUR-OUTER RING ROAD
KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLANPUR POST
BENGLURU-560037.
ALSO AT: DLF CORPORATE PARK, TOWER 4B,
2ND FLOOR, UNIT No.-201-204, GURGAON, INDIA.
ALSO AT: OFFICE No. 3, 5TH FLOOR, B WING,
HDIL KALEDONIA, SAHAR ROAD,
ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400069 (INDIA). … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 08.02.2017
Date of decision:23.07.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs
CC No. 119/2017 Page 1 of 6
under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that on 25.10.2016, the complainant placed online order to purchase a mobile handset Le Eco Le Max Rose Gold 32 GB and OP gave an order ID: OD607418940965246000 (at the address Amit Gupta, H. No. 58, 1st Floor, Indra Vihar, Delhi-110009) for Rs.17,999/- and the complainant received the product on 26.10.2016. Thereafter receiving the handset there appeared some connectivity issue (non-catching of network) and in this regard when concerned telecom companies were consulted to check the network issue by using the same SIM in another mobile handset and when it was checked the network was proper and assuming that the problem is in mobile handset and the complainant approached to nearest service center of Le Eco viz. Manav Communication Delhi. The complainant further alleged that the complainant reached to OP-1, no other customer was there and they don’t have any work load and the complainant was lonely customer waited for the turn for more than 1 hour and OP-1 took the mobile handset and provided job sheet no. 2016120900063 dated 09.12.2016 and OP-1 checked the mobile handset and it was told to the complainant that there was inherent problem in SIM port and figure-print sensor and OP-1 will get the handset repaired within 48 hours and communicable for return the mobile handset and OP-1 did not respond the complainant for 4 days and when the
CC No. 119/2017 Page 2 of 6
complainant receive no call and even a number of attempts were made by the complainant and because of non-response on calls, the complainant visited OP-1 and OP-1 told the complainant that the mobile handset has been sent to company service center at Bangalore and it will take 7 days and OP-1 will communicate the progress of the case but after passing of more days, the complainant called OP-1and OP-1 expressed inability about the status of the mobile handset. The complainant further alleged that the complainant called the customer care numbers, OP told that it could not be repaired and will take maximum 15 days and OP will call back after 48 hours but no call was received from OP-2. When the status of mobile handset was asked all the times OP reiterated the same line that OPs have server problem and OPs have no such job sheet/no information is available with OP. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a number of e-mails to OPs and the complainant further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the amount which the complainant paid i.e. Rs.17,999/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization as well as compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony
CC No. 119/2017 Page 3 of 6
and harassment and wasting the precious time and disturbing the studies alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and has also sought cost of the complaint including court fees.
3. Noticewas issued to OP-1 through speed post for appearance on 04.05.2017 and the notice was delivered to OP-1 on 20.02.2017 but despite service OP-1 failed to appear on 04.05.2017 and as such OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2017. However, earlier OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed reply and inthe reply, OP-2 submitted that the complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. However subsequently none for OP-2 appeared and OP-2 was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.03.2018.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-2 and denied the contentions of OP-2.
5. In order to prove hercase the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence. The complainant has also placed on record copy of tax invoice no. F0YQ100817-01516041 dated 25.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.17,999/- issued by Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd., copy of order details dated 25.10.2016, copy of repair order job sheet no. 201612090063 dated 09.12.2016 and copies of e-mail communication between the parties.
CC No. 119/2017 Page 4 of 6
6. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.The complainant has made so many complaints on telephone and also personally visited & requested to OPs but OPs failed to rectify the defect/problem in the mobile handset nor refunded the amount of the mobile handset which proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notice ofthis case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to lead any evidence in support of their defence. It also shows that OPs have no defence at all.
7. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile handset toOP-2 within warranty period and strangely the SIM slot not working properly. It was the duty of the OP-2 to rectify thedefect once for all or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. We accordingly hold OP-2 is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
CC No. 119/2017 Page 5 of 6
8. Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.17,999/- being the cost of the mobile handset on return of the accessories & original bill to OP-2.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 23rdday of July, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 119/2017 Page 6 of 6
