THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 638 of 14
Date of Institution : 4.12.2014
Date of Decision : 29.05.2015
Anil Kumar aged 50 years S/o Sh. Dina Nath r/o 139, Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Near Boharwala Shivala Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
North India Top Company (P) Ltd., (Spice Mobile Co.) TCI Supply Chain Solutions C/o Acom Warehouse & Logistics Park, 58, VIII-Kaprivas & Malpura, Rewari, Haryana through its Director/MD
Spice Retail Ltd., Authorized service centre, Cell Point ,Shop No. 201, 2nd Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar through its Prop.
....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 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Anil Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased mobile set of Spice company through online Home Shop 18 for Rs. 5999/- bearing IMEI No. 911353103153780 on 22.4.2014. On 29.10.2014 the said mobile set became defective with the problems of power key and volume key etc. Complainant visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and they kept the set and issued job sheet No. 19100043EA0350 and asked the complainant to come after 10/15 days. The complainant visited two three times to collect the set, but they told that it was not yet reparied. Ultimately on 19.11.2014 opposite party No.2 handed over another set of IMEI No. 911353103343142 which too was defective. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 and handed over the same . Since then it is lying with opposite party No.2 . Thereafter the complainant visited opposite parties time and again and demanded back his original set but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the original set or the new set in its place or to refund the price of the same alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that from the date oif purchase of mobile set in question, complainant used and enjoyed the same more than six months and after six months I.e . on 29.10.2014 approached the opposite party No.2 for power key and volume key problems . It was submitted that at the time of handed over the set to opposite party No.2, it was in miserable and rough condition and the same was narrated to the complainant. The opposite party issued a job sheet and it was narrated to the complainant that it needs to change of mother board and the set will be sent to company and to collect the same after 10 days . After 10 days complainant visited opposite party No.2 and the set in question was in OK condition and the same was handed over to the complainant but the complainant refused to take the said set on the ground that it was old set and also its IMEI number is changed. Opposite party No.2 requested the complainant that it was the same set which the complainant had handed over to them and the IMEI number is changed because the mother board was changed so the IMEI number was changed and if any problem occurred in future, they are ready to repair the same without charging any amount. But the complainant did not listen the request of the opposite party No.2 and filed the present complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 4.2.2015.
4. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet dated 29.10.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of job sheet dated 20.11.2014 Ex.C-4.
5. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sahikl Arora Ex.OP2/1, service request Ex.OP2/2.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased mobile set of Spice Company online from Home Shop 18 vide invoice Ex.C-2 dated 22.4.2014 , for a sum of Rs. 5999/-. The complainant alleges that on 29.10.2014 the said mobile became defective as its power key and volume key stopped working. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 , service centre . They kept the mobile with them and issued job sheet Ex.C-3 and the complainant was told to come after 10-15 days. But the opposite party failed to repair the aforesaid mobile set and ultimately on 19.11.2014 opposite party No.2 handed over another set to the complainant bearing IMEI No. 911353103343142 which too was defective. The complainant handed over the said mobile phone to opposite party No.2 on 20.11.2014 against job sheet ExC-4 and since then the opposite party neither repaired the original mobile of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant nor replaced the same and the mobile set of the complainant is still lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that the complainant used and enjoyed the mobile set for more than 6 months and approached opposite party No.2 for the first time on 29.10.2014 with complaint of power key and volume key problem in the mobile set. The mobile set was in a very miserable and rough condition. The job sheet Ex.C-3 was issued to the complainant. The mobile set was sent to the company and the complainant was told to come after 10 days to collect the same. The set in question was in OK condition and the same was handed over to the complainant .But the complainant refused to take the delivery of the said mobile set on the ground that set is old one and its IMEI number is also different . He again handed over the said set to opposite party No.2 on 20.11.2014 and opposite party No.2 issued job sheet Ex.C-4 to the complainant and he was asked to collect the said mobile set after 5 days. But thereafter the complainant did not turn up to collect the repaired set. As such opposite party No.2 is not at fault. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the mobile set of Spice company through online on 22.4.2014 vide invoice Ex.C-2 with warranty of one year for a sum of Rs. 5999/- . The said mobile set became defective and on 29.10.2014 the complainant brought the said mobile set before opposite party No.2 ,authorized service centre of Spice company and they issued job sheet Ex.C-3 and told the complainant to collect the mobile set after about 10 days. Opposite party No.2 did not hand over the mobile set to the complainant. However, ultimately on 19.11.2014 opposite party No.2 gave another mobile set to the complainant with different IMEI number. The said mobile set was also defective and the complainant returned the same to opposite party No.2 on 20.11.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-4. Since then opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with opposite party No.2. The plea of the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party has repaired the mobile set of the complainant but the complainant did not turn up to collect the same , is not tenable because opposite party No.2 has also failed to produce the said mobile set in this Forum for delivery to the complainant. All this fully proves that the original mobile set of the complainant is not repairable as such opposite party is liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model.
10. Resultantly the complaint is allowed 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 i.e. price of the mobile set to the complainant with 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 order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
29.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
