THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 222 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.04.2015
Date of Decision : 20.10.2015
Smt. Radha Sharma 35 years wife of Sh. Vijay Sharma, resident of House No. 463, Nehru Colony, Near Krishna Gali,Majitha Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
North India Top Company (P) Limited, TCI Supply Chain Solutions C/o Acom Warehouses & Logistics Park, 68, VIII Kapriwas and Malpura, Rewari (Haryana) through its Principal Officer/Incharge
Spice Retail Limited, 5, Global Knowledge Parks, 19-A and B , Sector 125, Noida 201301 (UP) through its Principal Officer/Incharge
Cell Point (Authorized Service Centre of Spice Retail Limited ) Shop No. 201, 2nd Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewall Bakery, Amritsar through its Principal Officer/Incharge
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.Vijay Sharma, husband of complainant
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
-2-
For opposite arty No.2 : Sh. Ajay Mehta, Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Smt. Radha Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased one Spice mobile from opposite party No.2 online for Rs. 2499/- vide invoice dated 18.12.2014 through opposite party No.1. According to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the mobile set on 22.12.2014 the said mobile set developed problem as after inserting SIM, the handset stopped on logo and power key problem and the mobile set got automatically stopped functioning. The complainant immediately visited opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 for repair. Opposite party No.3 after 10 days returned the mobile set to the complainant. Again the mobile set developed the same problem. The complainant handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3 on 31.1.2015 and opposite party No.3 returned the mobile set to the complainant on 3.3.2015 with assurance that the problem has been removed and the mobile set is OK. Thereafter the complainant again visited opposite party No.3 and apprised them that the same defect has occurred in the mobile set and requested them to rectify
-3-
the same, but opposite party No.3 refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant. Complainant has alleged that since the defect in the mobile set has occurred during warranty period, as such opposite parties are bound either to replace the same with new one or to refund the price with interest. But opposite parties did not listen the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective mobile with new one or to return the price thereof alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 30000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set on 18.12.2014 and the complainant deposited the said mobile set with opposite party No.3 on 31.1.2015. It was admitted that complainant approached opposite party No.3 which is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 on 31.1.2015. It was submitted that the mobile set has been neither repaired nor replaced by opposite party No.3, as such the non performance of work on the part of opposite parties No.2 & 3 cannot be attributed to opposite party No.1. It was submitted that replying opposite party is neither a manufacturer nor a service provider, as such the present compalint is not maintainable.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has denied that the handset started developing problems immediately after purchase. It was submitted that
-4-
complainant for the first time, visited the service centre on 31.1.2015 i.e. after 38 days of its purchase. Whenever the complainant visited the service cente, he was given due and proper services and the handset was repaired and handed over to the complainant within the stipulated time frame. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that the set has no manufacturing defect, so the same cannot be replaced and no case is made out for refund of the price . It was submitted that complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 31.1.2015 vide job sheet No. 10306 after one month from the date of purchase with problem of SIM handset stop on logo and power key problem, phone hang problm. At the time of receiving the hand set the same was narrated to the complainant that the said set needs to be sent at company level (L-3) and it may take 20-25 days . So with the consent of the complainant the said handset was sent to the company for removal of said defects and after about 25 days the set was returned back after its necessary repairs and the same was handed over to the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant . The complainant never came back to the service centre for any further problem. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of service request Ex.C-3.
-5-
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sanjiv Mehra Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/5.
7. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.B.M.Aggarwal, authorized signatory Ex.OP2/1.
8. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP3/1.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the representative of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the represenative of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite parties.
10. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant puchased one Spice Mobile set from opposite party No.1 online manufactured by opposite party No.2 vide invoice dated 18.12.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 2499/-. The complainant submitted that on 22.12.2014 the said mobile set developed problem as after inserting SIM, the hand set stopped on logo and power key problem and the mobile set got automatically stopped functioning. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 and handed over the mobile set to them for repair. Opposite party No.3 after 10 days returned the mobile set to the complainant after repair, but again the said mobile set started giving the same problem. Again the complainant
-6-
handed over the mobile set to opposite party No. 3 on 31.1.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and the opposite party No.3 returned the same to the complainant on 3.3.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than one month. But again the mobile set started giving same problem and the complainant visited opposite party No.3 and apprised them about the same defect in the mobile set and requested them to rectify the same , but opposite party No.3 refused to entertain the complaint by stating that this time they are helpless to set right the said mobile of the complainant. The complainant alleges that opposite parties No.1 & 2 have sold a defective mobile phone to the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
11. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that complainant never approached opposite party No.1 nor got registered any complaint regarding his mobile set with opposite party No.1. The complainant has approached opposite party No.3 which is the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 2 on 31.1.2015 and if the poduct has not been repaired by opposite party No.3 the non performance of work on the part of opposite parties No./2 & 3 cannot be attributed to opposite party No.1 because it is the opposite parties No.2 & 3 who are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty of the mobile set in question. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite
-7-
party No.1 qua the complainant.
12. Whereas case of opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that as per the record the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for the first time on 31.1.2015 and the hand set of the complainant was repaired and handed over to the complainant within the stipulated time frame. There is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile, as such the same cannot be replaced nor any case has been made out by the complainant for the refund of the price. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 31.1.2015 with the problem of SIM hand set stop on logo and power key problem, phone hang problm and it was narrated to the complainant that the said set needs to be sent at company level (L-3) and it may take 20-25 days. So with the consent of the complainant the said hand set was sent to the company to remove the said defect. After about 25 days the set was returned back by the company after necessary repair and the same was handed over to the complainant after their full satisfaction. Thereafter the complainant never came nor approached opposite party No.3 with any problem in the mobile set of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite parites No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
13. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased one Spice Mobile set from opposite party No.2 online vide invoice dated 18.12.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 2499/-. The complainant
-8-
submitted that on 22.12.2014 the said mobile set developed problem as after inserting SIM the hand set stop on logo ,power key problem and the mobile set got automatically stopped functioning. He approached opposite party No.3 for repair, who repaired the mobile set and handed over the same to the complainant after about 10 days. Whereas opposite parties No.2 & 3 have alleged that complainant never approached opposite party No.3 with any defect in the mobile set on 22.12.2014 nor opposite party No.3 repaired the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant also could not produce any evidence to prove that he approached opposite party No.3 on 22.12.2014. Opposite party No.3 has submitted that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for the first time on 31.1.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 with problem of SIM hand set stop on logo and power keyproblem/phone hang problem. The complainant was told that the said set needs to be sent to the company level (L-3) and it may take 20 to 25 days. So with the consent of the complainant the said hand set was sent to the company to remove the said defect. After about 25 days the said mobile set received back from the company after necessary repair and the same was handed over to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never approached opposite party No.3 service centre with any problem in the mobile set. The complainant also could not produce any cogent evidence except his own bald statement that thereafter the complainant again approached opposite party No.3 with problem in his mobile set for repair but
-9-
they refused to repair the mobile set of the complainant as alleged by the complainant. The mobile set is with the complainant . He neither produced the same in the Forum to prove any problem nor approached opposite party No.3, authorized service centre with any problem in the mobile set nor the complainant could produce any report of any other mechanic to prove that the mobile set has any manufacturing/inherent defect which is not repairable.
14. So from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 , authorized service centre with problem in his mobile set only once on 31.1.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and the mobile set was repaired and handed ove to the complainant. Now if there is any problem in the mobile set of the complainant, he should approach opposite party No.3 for the removal of that defect in the mobile set of the complainant as the mobile set is within the warranty period.
15. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant that if there is any defect in the mobile set of the complainant, he should approach opposite party No.3 within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and opposite party No.3 is directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of mobile set from the complainant. In case the mobile set is not repairable , then opposite party No.2 is liable to either replace the mobile set
-10-
of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 2499/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. 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.
20.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
