DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 256/2017
D.No._______________________ Date: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
BRISHKETU S/o SH. VINOD KUMAR,
R/o A-191, GANGA RAM COLONY,
TIKRI KHURD NARELA, DELHI-110040. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MOBIFONE: SWP022,
G-3/73, SECTOR-16, ROHINI,
DELHI-110089.
2. SWIPE INDIA,
F-4 A/B/C, METROPOLE BUILDING,
NEAR INOX THEATRE,
BUND GARDEN ROAD,
PUNE-411001. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.03.2017 Date of decision:23.04.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased Swipe Elite Plus mobile handset from
CC No. 256/2017 Page 1 of 5
Flipkart on 04.10.2016 and the complainant preferred Swipe because it is an Indian brand but after using fora couple of months, it started to show network fluctuations and at one point, the mobile handset was unable to detect network in both the SIMs. The complainant went to Swipe Authorized Service Centre (Mobifone: SWP022, Rohini, Sec-16) and after initial check-up, the engineer told that the mobile handset need tobe sent to service centre and it will take 10-15 days and the complainant submitted the mobile handset on 14.01.2017 and when the complainant contacted Mobifone continuously after 15 days and they told the complainant that they have sent several reminders but Swipe is not responding to the e-mails and the complainant contacted Swipe but they are always trying to fool the complainant. Thereafter, they returned the mobile handset after approx. 70 days which is a criminal level of service mindset and the complainant suffered a lot of mental stress and faith on Indian brand and further alleged that 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 pay the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental, physical agony and harassment.
3. Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 03.07.2017 and the notice to OP-1 was served on 11.04.2017 &
CC No. 256/2017 Page 2 of 5
OP-2 was served on 12.04.2017 as per track reports and none have appeared on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 and as such OP-1 & OP-2 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2017.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail/tax invoice dated 04.10.2016 issued by Shreyash Retail Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road,South Extension, New Delhi, copy of job sheet dated 14.01.2017 issued by Mobifone (SWP022) and copies of e-mail communication between the parties.
5. 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 remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving summons of this case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant.
6. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service enter of OP-1 within warranty period. Though OPs had tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the mobile handset again and again but the defect has not been rectified. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product. Failure on the part of OPs to
CC No. 256/2017 Page 3 of 5
rectify the defects clearly shows that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile which OPs have failed to rectify. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-2are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
7. Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,500/- being the depreciated amount of the mobile handset on return of accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- ascompensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
8. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 & 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-1 & OP-2 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CC No. 256/2017 Page 4 of 5
9. 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 April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 256/2017 Page 5 of 5
