DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 354-14
Date of Institution : 2.7.2014
Date of Decision : 27.2.2015
Kuldip Bhalla, 17 Race Course Road, Amritsar-143001
...Complainant
Vs.
S.Mobility Ltd., S Global Knowledge Park, 19-A & 19B,, Sector 125, Noida 20I30I, UP (M 09988011091)
Spice Care Centre Cell Point, Shop No. 201, Second Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar (M 98140-54331)
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Ajay Mehta,Adv.
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Kuldip Bhalla under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile having IMEI No. 911337050833684 from Home Shop 18 for Rs. 6999/- on 31.10.2013 . According to the complainant on 18.4.2014 the camera of mobile stopped working as well as there exists charging problem. On 19.4.2013 complainant went to the service centre of Spice who issued job sheet No. 3224 and told the complainant that they are unable to repair the mobile set and the same will be sent to Spice company and it will take atleast 15 days to get it repaired. After 15 days complainant again approached the service centre to enquire about the mobile, who again told that it will take another 10 days . On 12.5.2014 complainant received a message from Spice company that the set is repaired and ready for delivery. He again approached the service centre on 13.5.2014 to collect his mobile. Complainant was shocked to see the mobile as the same was totally dead. Complainant told that the problem was only with the camera and charging and the same was broken by them. The complainant handed over the set in a broken and dead condition. Mr. Sahir owner of Spice Service centre told the complainant that
-3-
the set will again be sent to the company and it will take another 15 days for repair. On 24.5.2014 complainant received a message from the company to collect the mobile. The complainant again approached the service centre but the set was still in dead condition and the same is in the custody of the opposite party in dead condition. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to award Rs. 6999/- alongwith interest .Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that they have no idea about the whole conversation held between complainant and opposite party No.2 regarding handset. It was admitted that as per warranty scheme of the company, they provide one year warranty with each and every new handset. The complainant has stated that he visited the service centre many times personally but the name mentioned in the job sheet is Ankush. It was submitted that service centre of the answering opposite party contacted several times but the complainant refused to collect the handset.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that after using the mobile set for about 6 months, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 19.4.2014 with problem of Camera vide job sheet No. 3224. It was submitted that camera problem was created due to mishandling of the complainant. The set was sent to the company for camera repair which was received by opposite party
-4-
No.2. Thereafter the mobile set was handed over to the complainant, but the complainant refused to take the mobile set on the ground that the mobile set was dead. So another job sheet was issued to the complainant bearing No. 50114 dated 13.5.2014 and the set was again sent to the company with the comments given by the complainant that the mobile set is dead. Thereafter the mobile set was received from the company and the complainant was informed to collect the mobile set. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 but he again refused to take the set on the ground that it is dead. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of service job sheet Ex.C-3, copy of service request Ex.C-4.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. B.M. Aggarwal, Authorized signatory Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsels for opposite parties No.1 & 2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsels for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on
-5-
record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Spice mobile set vide invoice No. TARA 555556 with IMEI No. 911337050833684 on 31.10.2013. The complainant alleges that on 18.4.2014 the camera of mobile set stopped functioning . It has also charging problem. Resultantly on 19.4.2014 he went to service centre of Spice Company i.e. opposite party No.2 and they kept the mobile and issued service job sheet No. 3224 Ex.C-3 dated 19.4.2014. But the opposite party No.2 was not able to repair the mobile set and they told the complainant that it will be sent to Spice company and it will take atleast 15 days for repair. After 15 days the complainant went to opposite party No.2 but they told the complainant that he should approach the opposite party No.2 after 10 days. On receipt of message from opposite party No.2 on 12.5.2014, the complainant went to opposite party No.2 on 13.5.2014 to collect the mobile but the mobile set was not working properly rather it was totally dead when it was in the custody of opposite party No.2. Then the complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2 and they issued another job sheet dated 13.5.2014 Ex.C-4. On receipt of message from opposite party No.2, the complainant again visited opposite party No.2 on 24.5.2014 but again found that the mobile set was totally dead. It had switch on problem. So the complainant did not take the delivery of the mobile set. The mobile set is still lying with opposite party No.2 as they had failed to repair the same and make it fully functional. Thereafter the complainant sent so many e-mails, SMS but
-6-
the opposite party neither repaired the mobile set nor replaced the same with new one . The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that they have no idea about the conversation between the complainant and opposite party No.2 regarding the mobile set . As per warranty scheme of company they provide one year warranty with each and every new hand set. The complainant has stated that he visited the service centre many times personally but the name mentioned in the job sheet is Ankush. The aforesaid service centre of Spice i.e. opposite party No.2 is ready to repair the mobile set of the complainant. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that after using the mobile set for about 6 months, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 19.4.2014 with problem of Camera vide job sheet Ex.C-3. The set was sent to the company for camera repair which was received by opposite party No.2. Thereafter the mobile set was handed over to the complainant, but the complainant refused to take the mobile set on the ground that the mobile set was dead. So another job sheet was issued to the complainant bearing No. 50114 dated 13.5.2014 and the set was again sent to the company with the comments given by the complainant that the
-7-
mobile set is dead. Thereafter the mobile set was received from the company and the complainant was informed to collect the mobile set. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 but he again refused to take the set on the ground that it was dead.. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from Home Shop 18 vide invoice dated 31.10.2013 Ex.C-2 for Rs. 6999/-. The said set became defective on 18.4.2014 as its camera was not functioning and it was also giving charging problem. Resultantly the complainant handed over the mobile set to the authorized service centre of Spice i.e. opposite party No.2 on 19.4.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. The mobile set was repaired by opposite party No.2 and when the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 13.5.2014 , he found the set was totally dead. He immediately returned the mobile phone to opposite party No.2 and they issued another job sheet Ex.C-4 dated 13.5.2014 with the remarks that mobile set is dead and it was again sent to the company for repair . Opposite party has stated that they got repairred the mobile set from the company and told the complainant to collect the mobile set, but the complainant submitted that the mobile set was dead and he refused to take the same . Since then the mobile set is with opposite party No.2. But opposit eparty No.2 thereafter neither repaired the
-8-
mobile set nor handed over the same to the complainant nor opposite party produced the mobile set in the Forum , if fully repaired, so that the same could be handed over to the complainant. All this fully proves that mobile set is still lying with opposite party No.2 and they failed to repair the same and make it fully functional . So it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant.
12. Resultalty the complaint is allowed with costs and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the amount of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
27.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
