Delhi

North East

CC/250/2015

Kameshwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Digital Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 250/15

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Kameshwar Singh 488/5 C-3, Dilshad Garden Industrial Area, Main Road, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.       3.	M/s Digital Solutions, 72-A, Vijay Block, Main Main Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092   M/s. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd., 6th Floor, C-Oberoi Garden Estate, Mumbai 400 072   F-1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt Ltd. Unit No. 206, 2nd Floor, Completent House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110002		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		17.07.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		25.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		03.10.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri  Kameshwar Singh against M/s.  M/s Digital Solutions- OP1, M/s. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Ltd- OP2 & M/s. F-1, Info Solutions & Services Pvt Ltd.– OP3 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchase a mobile phone, Sony Experia Z3 (D6653)- White IMEI                                           No. 3550980602073256 vide Invoice No. DS/VJ/T/5195/14-15 dated 21.10.2014 for Rs. 50,000/- from OP1, who also convinced the complainant to purchase protection policy of OP2 for Rs. 2,499/-vide its invoice no. DS/VJ/T/5196/14-15 dated 21.10.2014. On 9.5.2014 the handset of the complainant had liquid damage due to accident. Thereafter, the complainant called at customer care help line no. of OP2, where he was informed by the executive that they had replacement policy with respect to Sony Experia Z3. It is stated that he was informed regarding the available schemes for replacement, one, being the cashless and the other was door step service. In case the complainant wanted door step service he was required to pay nominal expenses for which job sheet No. 3699 dated 11.5.15 was issued by the executive of OP2. On 13.5.2015 the complainant enquired about the status of his claim information no. AD-D-090515-2541796, where he was informed that the handset couldn’t be repaired and replacement will be done within 15 days. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to call OP3 where he was informed that the handset would be repaired and not replaced, repair would be done after receiving the required part which was not available at that moment. The complainant contacted office of OP3where he has informed that IMEI Number was not available. Thus, the handset could not be repaired, as the claim of the complainant was not approved by OP2. The complainant has stated that the handset is lying with OPs. Further, he has alleged OP liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed for directions to the OPs to replace the mobile phone with a new one, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

Invoice dated 21.10.14, Job sheet dated 11.5.15 alongwith terms and conditions, undated letter written to OPs alongwith postal receipts has been annexed with complaint.

2. OP1 in their reply have taken the defence that they were just reseller of the mobile protection plan of OP2. Thus, they could not be held liable for any deficiency in service.
3. OP2 & OP3 were proceeded ex parte on 3.11.2015 as they failed to appear and file any reply.
4. In rejoinder the complainant stated that the said Mobile Protection Plan was sold by OP1. Hence, OP1 and OP2 were jointly or severally liable for deficiency in service.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant where he examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of complaint and got exhibited copy of bills/ invoices of Mobile phone as Ex CW1/A (Colly), copy of jobsheet of the service centre exhibited as Ex CW1/B,  copy of visiting card of the service centre exhibited as Ex CW1/C, copy of the terms and conditions of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd exhibited as Ex CW1/D, copy of complaint sent to all the respondents with its postal receipts dated 6.6.15 exhibited as Ex CW1/E (Colly),  copy of passport of the complainant exhibited as Ex CW1/F.

No evidence was filed by OP1 despite sufficient opportunities and subsequently they stopped appearing. 

6. We have gone through the pleading and written arguments filed on behalf of complainant. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of OPs. He placed on record invoice issued by OP1 which is exhibited as Ex CW1/A (Colly) which have been issued on the letter head of OP1. Further,  the complainant has placed on record the job sheet issued by OP2 as the complainant has got his handset insured by buying the protection plan of OP2, he is fully entitled to get the same repaired/replaced as per policy of terms & conditions. OP2 has failed to return the repair handset or replace the same despite the fact it was insured. OP1 has sold the said protection plan to the complainant on their retail invoice. Therefore, they are also held liable for endorsing the product sold by OP2. Hence, we hold OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 45,000/- being the depreciated cost of handset and we also award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of mental agony inclusive of litigation charges.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  03.10.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member