Delhi

North East

CC/434/2014

Yogender - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Spice Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2016

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.434/14

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Yogender Kumar R/o 445-B, Durga Puri Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-110032.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	M/s Spice Retail Ltd. At: 1449/109-A Ground floor, Gali No. 3 100 ft. Road, Durgapuri, Delhi-93.   M/s RMP Electronics Pvt Ltd. Powered by Gudget Cops At: H.O. A-83, Sector-2, Noida-201302. Registered Office: T-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi-20.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		30.10.2014
			DATE OF DECISION      :		20.09.2016

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Order

 

1. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 21.10.2013 he purchased a Tablet, make Samsung, model “Samsung Tab -3 T-2110”, for a sum of Rs. 16,900/- from OP1 and on the same day it was insured by OP2 on payment of Rs. 649/-. On 26.6.2014 the body and screen of the said tablet was cracked therefore a complaint, in this regard, was made to OP2, for its repairing. The officials of OP2 kept the said Tablet and assured that the screen problem of said mobile will be removed within one week and consequently the said Tablet was handed over to the complainant on 4.7.2014 and at that time Rs. 1250/- was also paid by the complainant to OP2 as co-pay amount but the screen problem of the said mobile was still there. In this connection complainant again, number of times, approached the OP2 personally as well as through E-mails but OP2 paid no heed to the requests of complainant. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs complainant has prayed to direct the OPs to pay the cost of mobile phone of Rs. 16,900/- alongwith interest       @ 24% p.a., Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Both the OPs were served but only OP2 filed its reply while OP1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.10.2015. As per its reply OP2 stated that in response to complaint dated 26.6.2014 about the problem (screen crack), his officials went to the house of the complainant and picked up the phone. The phone was repaired to entire satisfaction of the complainant and was returned back to him on 4.7.2014. Thereafter on further complaint again officials of OP2 reached house of the complainant. On inspection of the mobile they found that there was no problem in it. OP2 say that the allegations are false and frivolous. Thus no defect in the phone and no cause of action and complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
3. Thereafter none appeared for OP2 and it was also proceeded against Ex-parte. Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. Complainant in replication to WS of OP2 denied repair of mobile to his satisfaction and reiterated his complaint.
6. On perusal of record we find that for continuous eight months there was no defect in the mobile and it was only on 26.6.14 that first defect arose. Complaint to OP on 26.6.13 and picking up phone by the OP2 and returning the same to the complainant on 4.7.14 and payment of Rs. 1250/- as co-pay amount to OP2 is admitted.
7. The jobsheets, dated 9.7.14 shows the defect “Lines on screen, Display blinking” and dated 30.7.14 shows that again third complaint was made by the complainant of “Screen Display Problem, White Spots, Data Loss”. Said Tablet was delivered by OP2 on 9.8.14 but mobile is still not repaired by OP2. In support of his allegation complainant has also filed photographs of mobile showing the problem as still existing.
8. On the basis of above findings we find that though complainant used the mobile for about eight months continuously without any defect but defect arose within the insurance period. Complainant tried its best to get the same rectified but OP2 failed to rectify the same. Thus, we are of the considered view that OP2 has failed to rectify the said Tablet even after so many complaints lodged by the complainant and attended by OP2.
9.  Therefore, we, holding OP2 guilty for deficiency in service for not providing their best service being service provider to complaint, direct OP2 to:-

1.   Replace the said tablet with brand new or pay  the cost of tablet Rs. 16,900/- ;
2.   Pay the complainant Rs. 2,000/- as   compensation for mental & physical harassment ; and
3.   Pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.  

 

10. The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of order of this forum. Failing which the OP is liable to pay interest on the cost amount of Tablet @ 9% from the date of order passed till the realization of amount and complainant is free to move this forum U/s 27 of C.P. Act.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
12. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  20.09.2016)    

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member