Delhi

North

RBT/CC/185/2022

SH. S S MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR ADITYA MEHRA - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/185/2022

[DCDRC-V (NW) CC No. 677/2018]

 

In the matter of

Sh.S.S.Mittal, Advocate

S/o late Sh.B.D.Mittal

C-8, Varun Apartment,

Sector-9, Rohini

Delhi-110085                                                                           ......Complainant

Versus

Mr. Aditya Mehra, Owner

iZone,  G-59A, Aggarwal City Plaza Manglam Place

Near M2K Cinema,

Sector-3, Rohini                                                                  …Opposite Party-1

                  

YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd.

C-2, Sector-1, Gautam Buddha  Nagar

Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh)

                                                                                           …Opposite Party-2

                                                      

ORDER
31/05/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

1. The complainant, Sh. S.S.Mittal has filed the present complaint against         Mr. Aditya Mehra, owner of I Zone (OP-I) and YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. as OP-2,  under Section 12, Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on part of OPs.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that, on 07/10/2016, the complainant had purchased one Mobile handset, Apple Iphone-7, 128 GB with IMEI NO.359154071451365 and Sr.No.DNRSGY3LHG7K for Rs.70,000/- from  I Zone (OP-1). It has been stated that the OP-1 is authorised reseller of Apple and invoice No.583 dated 07/10/2016 was issued.  The complainant has alleged that OP-1 convinced the complainant to get the mobile insured from their counterpart namely, YMS Mobitech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) who owns the brand name “Apps You Need”. The complainant was informed that in case of any mis-happening, the repair work will be done by the authorised Apple Centre and replacement of parts if needed shall be done with the authorised and genuine parts.   The complainant was assured that the repair/replacement shall be free of cost. Relying on the assurance made by the OP, the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- for insurance for which invoice no.584 dated 07/01/2016 was issued. The complainant has alleged that the insurance cover included complete cover for physical damage, liquid damage and theft etc. under the brand name of “App You Need” which was having its tie up with New India Assurance Company Ltd.
3. On 22/01/2017, the screen of the mobile was shattered for which a claim was lodged vide claim CIN No. SD80768934392.  The handset was picked up around 27^th /28^th January, 2017 from the residence of the complainant after approval.  The complainant has stated that vide email dated 19/11/2016, the activation of the insurance policy was confirmed and same was reaffirmed vide emails dated 22/01/2017 and 08/02/2017. 
4. On 11/02/2017, the complainant received his mobile phone back, however he was  asked to pay a sum of Rs.900/- towards the service charges being 5% of the cost incurred in changing the parts of the insured handset, which implied that the cost of the replaced part was Rs.18,000/-.  The complainant has alleged that the said part was available for replacement for Rs.16,000/- at the B2X Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the Authorised Service Centre of Apple. 
5. The complainant has further alleged that within a day or two there was problem in the touch screen for which the son of the complainant namely, Mr. Akshay Mittal approached the B2X service Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Authorised service centre where he was informed that the warranty of the handset had become void as the same was repaired from some unauthorised agency. A delivery report dated 13/02/2018 (sic) bearing No.DELR13022017308203 with report “Device display with compared with known good I-phone display but display glass seems to be changed so warranty service cannot be processed.”
6. On further inquiry the complainant came to know that the details of the alleged repair were not available on the server of the Apple, although any kind of service of a particular device are available on the server/record of the company thus OP has cheated the complainant by not getting the handset repaired from authorised Apple centre and even refused to provide the details vide their email dated 13/02/2017.
7. On 25/02/2017, again the OP got the mobile phone picked from the residence of the complainant with assurance of replacement with the new one. However, the same handset was returned without any repair on 18/03/2017. A police compliant was registered on 23/03/2017, vide DD No.31-B and thereafter FIR No.192 dated 12/08/2018, was also registered by PS: South Rohini under Section 420 and 120B of IPC.
8. The complainant has alleged that OP-2 had changed the display screen with a duplicate one rendering it useless due to which the complainant was forced to purchase a new Samsung Galaxy S8+ vide bill No.2993 on 09/05/2017 for Rs.64,900/-. Feeling aggrieved by the act/omission on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to refund Rs.76,000/- being the amount paid by the complainant towards the cost of the handset plus insurance; Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment; pendente–lite and future interest @18% p.a.
9. The complainant has annexed the copy of invoice No.583 and invoice No.584 dated 07/10/2016 as Annexure-A & B respectively; copy of emails dated 19/11/2016 and 22/01/2017 to 08/02/2017 as Annexure C; copy of the delivery report dated 13/02/2017 as Annexure-D; email dated 13/02/2017 as Annexure E.  The complainant has also annexed the copy of the police complaint dated 23/03/2017 and copy of the FIR No.192 dated 12/02/2018 as Annexure F & G respectively.  The copy of the invoice dated 09/05/2017 for Samsung Galaxy S8+ is Annexure H.
10. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the OP-1 and OP-2.  As per order dated 07/01/2019, the advance copy of the written statement on behalf of OP-1 was supplied to the complainant; however, the original was not filed on record.  Later on no one appeared on behalf of OP-1.  None appeared on behalf of OP-2 as well, neither any reply was filed on their behalf.  Thus they are proceeded          Ex-parte.
11. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated.  The complainant has got exhibited the invoice No.583 for Rs.70,000/- dated 07/10/2017 as Exhibit PW1/A , invoice No.584 for Rs.6,000/- dated  07/10/2016 on account  of insurance as Exhibit PW1/B, emails from 22/01/2017 to 08/02/2017 are Ex.PW1/C(colly); delivery report No.DELR13022017308203 dated 13/02/2017 as Ex.PW1/D; email dated 13/02/2017 as Ex.PW1/E.  The police complaint dated 23/03/2017 and FIR No.192 dated 12/08/2018 are Ex.PW1/F & Ex.PW1/G respectively.  The invoice dated 09/05/2017 for Rs.64,900/- for the purchase of Samsung Galaxy S8+ is Ex.PW1/H.
12. We have heard the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged that he was assured that the repairs would be carried out by the authorised service centre, in support of which the complainant has relied on Ex.PW1/C (colly) where it is mentioned:

“Once your phone and claim form are picked up, we’ll send your phone to an authorised service centre for repair.If your phone is repairable it will be repaired and sent back to you.”

 

It is observed that the said mail has been sent by “Apps you need” and the assurance is also provided by the Apps you need team.

13. Even in para 4 of the complainant evidence it has been deposed that as per the representation made for and on behalf of the Opposite party, the complainant also uploaded the required documents/ photographs etc. on the website of the “Apps you need” which was approved and thereafter the handset was sent for repairs.

14. The complainant has placed on record emails dated 25/01/2017, 31/01/2017, 03/02/2017.  As per email dated 03/02/2017, CIN SD80769834392 has been issued for the claim.  Similarly, in an email dated 08/02/2017 the complainant has been informed that his case is under process and will be updated with the status within 30 days of approval. As OP-2 chose not to appear and defend their case despite service, the allegations made by the complainant cannot be disbelieved.  As the allegations made by the complainant have remained unrebutted we are of the opinion that OP-2 not only failed to provide services as assured in ‘Welcome email’ dated 19/11/2016 as well as emails dated 22/01/2017 and 23/01/2017.  Hence, we hold that OP-2 was deficient in rendering services. 

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP-2 :-

1. To pay Rs.70,000/- being the cost of the handset as their act had resulted in the warranty becoming void and failed to repair alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint (05/10/2018) till realization.
2. Refund Rs.6,000/- paid by the complainant on account of insurance alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint (05/10/2018) till realization.
3. Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order, in case of non-compliance Rs.86,000/-(70,000/-+10,000/-+6,000/-) shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta) Member

 

                            

                                        (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                                                               President