Delhi

North East

CC/300/2015

Sangeeta Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

North India Top Company Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

19 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. 300/15

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Sangeeta Sharma B-120 Street No. 12, New Modern Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1	North India Top Company Pvt Ltd. (NITL) TCI SCS C/o Aeron Warehouse & Logistic Park Block 3, 68 Village Kaprivas and Halpura, Taluq Driaruhera, Haryana, Rewari 123106
2	Service Centre Address : A-160, First Floor, Krishna Bhawan, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, New Delh-110092
3	Spice Company S Global Knowledge Park 19A & 19B, Sector 125, NOIDA 201301 U.P.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	19.08.2015
	DATE OF DECISION      :	19.09.2016

 

ORDER

Hon’ble N.K. Sharma, President

Hon’ble N.A. Alvi, Member

Hon’ble Usha Khanna, Member

 

1. As per complaint, complainant has purchased a mobile phone Spice, 5 Inch, Dual SIM, 3G, Android, MI White from OP1 on 19.04.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,249/-. After few days of purchase mobile phone became defective. Complainant approached OP1 who referred her to OP2- Service Centre. OP2 deposited the mobile phone for repairing on 29.06.2015 vide job sheet service Registered No. 30100144F60860. Thereafter, even after visiting a number of times after week’s interval OP2 did not provide mobile phone back to complainant, after repair. Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 5,249/-, the cost of mobile phone alongwith Rs. 1,000/- for compensation.
2. All the OPs were duly served but only OP1 appeared and filed its reply. While OP2 & OP3 didn’t appear and vide order dated 16.11.2015 both OPs were proceeded against Ex parte. Thereafter, on 30.11.2015, 07.01.2016, 22.02.2016, 10.03.2016 & 11.04.16 the case was taken up. But OP2 didn’t appear.  Similarly, OP3 didn’t appear on 30.11.20156, 07.11.2015, 22.02.2016 & 10.03.2016. It was only on 11.04.2016 that one Mr. Dinesh Chaurasia, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP3 and sought time to get instructions for settlement. OP2 put its appearance first time on 26.04.2016 after passing about 06 dates.
3. OP1 by filing its reply pleaded no deficiency on its behalf stating that it was responsible only, if there was deficiency in delivery of the mobile phone. Responsibility of defect in mobile phone if any, after delivery of the same, is of OP1 or OP3. On 10.03.2016 one Mr. Shailender Soni, Manager appeared on behalf of OP1 with a new fact that the mobile phone in question has already been delivered against original job sheet. But even after providing sufficient opportunity, OP1 could not place on record said original job sheet. Thereafter, on 26.04.2016 it was stated on behalf of OP2 that they have destroyed the job sheet as Rules provide to retain the same for 3 months only. To file the Rules OP2 sought adjournment but on next date no such Rules were placed on record. Rather OP2 pleaded that there are no written rules but only instructions for the same from the company. OP2 filed affidavit to that effect on the next date. Complainant filed an affidavit stating that original job sheet is misplaced and in case the same is found in future, she shall surrender the same to concerned authority. As the dispute remains only as to whether the mobile handset was delivered to complainant or not, no affidavit of evidence on merit is filed by the parties.
4. Heard and perused the record.
5. Admittedly mobile phone became defective within warranty period and the same was deposited with OP2 service centre for repairing. Police Report establishes that the job sheet issued by OP2 was misplaced. Regarding delivery of the mobile, back to the complainant after repairs OP1 by filing its reply nowhere mentioned that the mobile phone had been delivered to complainant and it is only after so many dates, on 10.03.2016 this fact of delivery of mobile phone was brought to the notice of this Forum, first time. On the other hand OP2 & OP3 both were served on 21.10.2015 & 14.10.2015 respectively but they didn’t come forward and taken this plea of delivery of mobile phone to the complainant. It was only after OP1 had taken this plea that they also joined OP1. Apart, OP2 nowhere stated that complainant approached it and phone was not returned for want of original job sheet.
6. On the basis of above one can reasonably presume that the if OPs particularly OP2 had any defence that mobile has been returned, it would have come forward on the very first date, after service of notice on it. And not at later stage, after OP1 took this defence, that too after filing its reply. Beside OP1 also offered for settlement which had no occasion if mobile would have been returned. On the basis of above findings we are of the view that OP2  & OP3 failed to repair the mobile phone of complainant and return the same, thereafter, and the same is still with OP2.
7. Thus, holding OP2  & OP3 guilty for deficiency in service for, being unable to repair mobile phone, and unfair trade practice, we direct them jointly or severally to

1. either return the mobile phone duly repaired to complainant or
2. replace it with brand new mobile phone of the same model and description with remaining warranty.

8. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10. File be consigned to record room.

 

(Announced on 19.09.2016)     

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Usha Khanna) Member