Delhi

North East

CC/377/2014

Shyam Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Green Service P. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 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 377/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shyam Jain R/o 1/2384, Gali No. 3, Ram Nagar Mandoli Road, Shahdara Delhi-110032
		Complainant
	Versus
1       2         3                         4	Royal Green Services Pvt Ltd. 303, 3rd floor, Dimention Deepti Plaza Pocket-6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110045   Lata Rani (Director) Royal Green Service Private Limited A-623, Oxford School Gali Gopal Nagar, Delhi-110043   Ashok Kumar Kushwaha (Director) Royal Green Service Private Limited M-11, Chanakya Place, Part-II, Uttam Ngr Delhi-110059   All of above also at 212 B, 3rd Floor, Street No. 2, Vaishali, Palam Road, Dabri, New Delhi-110045           Smart Phone World Through its Manager/ Prop./ Partner B-1/31, Shop No. 3, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties
Order

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	18.09.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	28.02.2017

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

 

1. As per complaint, complainant purchased an HTC Mobile Phone on 13.05.2013 from OP4. Model of the Phone was Desire VCT-328. OP4 issued an invoice no. 2398 against payment of Rs. 14,500/- dt 13.05.2013 for the purchase of this mobile phone in the name of complainant. On the same date a cashless protection plan for this mobile phone was also purchased by the complainant from OP1 through OP4. A certificate of insurance dated 13.05.2013 was also issued by OP1. As per warranty condition this protection plan provided extended warranty valid for two years from the date of purchase interalia covering accidental damage and warranty transfer for two years.
2. On 8.7.2014 complainant felt some problem in the mobile handset as GSM SIM was not working in the SIM slot of the phone and camera was not working properly. Complaint whereof was lodged by complainant to OP1 on its Helpline No. 1800-1022-404 and he was provided complainant no. 7140 dated 8.7.14 by OP1. Next day an executive came to complainant’s place from the side of OP1 and after checking the mobile phone, he required to carry the phone to his office for further diagnosis. In compliance whereof complainant’s wife handed over the phone to him vide Memo No. 3935 dated 9.7.14.
3. On 11.07.2014 when complainant asked about the phone from the office of OP1, its official told that the phone shall be returned to him on 18.07.2014. But on 18.07.2014 also the phone was not delivered to complainant after repair. Rather, office of OP1 extended the period of return to different dates i.e. 30.07.2014, 05.08.2014, 12.08.2014 & 18.08.2014 but even after those dates the phone was not delivered, even after a number of calls and requests from the side of complainant and ultimately complainant had to serve legal notice to all the OPs  on 16.08.2014. Copy of the legal notice was also sent to OP1 at its email address info@royalgreenservices.com. Despite receipt of notice, neither the notice was replied by the OPs nor the phone was returned back after repairs to complainant, till date.
4. Pleading harassment, mental agony and at the hands of OPs and unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of OPs,  complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of the mobile phone being Rs. 14,500/- with interest thereon @18 percent per annum, thereon from the date of purchase. Complainant has also prayed for grant of damages in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- beside litigation cost.
5. As OP2 and OP3 were made a party in their personal capacity the complaint was admitted only against OP1 & OP4 being the insurance company and the shopkeeper who issued the protection plan and sold the mobile in question, respectively.
6. Notice sent to OP4 was duly served but nobody appeared on behalf of OP4 despite so many opportunities. Hence, vide order dated 07.01.2015 OP4 was proceeded against Ex parte.  Notice sent to OP1 received back unserved with postal remarks “No such person.”  Complainant was asked to verify fresh and correct address who reported that OP1 is very much existing on given address and deliberately avoiding service of notice from this Forum. On the basis of which service of notice to OP1 was presumed to be served on OP1 also. As even after knowledge of the complaint OP1 didn’t appear and filed its reply, OP1 was also proceeded against ex parte.
7. Complainant filed ex parte evidence alongwith supporting documents.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. Complainant has filed copy of the invoice dated 13.05.2013 as annexure-C1, copy of cashless protection plan as annexure-C2, Receipt Memo No. 3935 dated 9.7.2014 as anneure-C3, copy of legal notice and postal receipts as annexure-C4 & C5 respectively, copy of email sent to OP1 as annexure-C6. Track report showing service of legal notice aforesaid on OP and return envelopes as annexure C8 & C9.
10. Perusal of above documents shows that complainant duly purchased mobile of HTC make Model No Desire VCT 328 from OP4 against payment of Rs. 14,500/- on 13.05.13, through whom complainant also took cashless protection plan from OP1, thereby providing extended warranty for one year to be commenced after the expiry of one year original warranty given by the manufacturer of mobile phone, covering all types of damages in the mobile phone. Perusal of certificate dated 13.05.2013 issued for cashless protection plan aforesaid shows that the certificate though in the name of OP1 is also signed under the seal of OP4 also. This fact establishes the contention of the complainant that the protection plan was taken through OP4. Rather, both OP1 & OP4 also seems hands in gloves with one another. Thus, having obligation of this protection plan jointly and severely. First defect in the mobile arose on 8.7.2014 within extended warranty period of two years. Representative of OP1 collected the mobile phone for repair on 9.7.2014 but the phone was not returned back after repairs by OP1 despite a number of dates given for said purpose. On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances complainant has placed on record all the supporting documents in proof of his case while OP1 and OP4 by not contesting the complaint failed to controvert the documents placed on record in support of the claim by complainant. Hence, case of the complainant stands proved.
11. Therefore, in our view OP1 & OP4 have, not only adopted unfair trade practice but also are deficient in service. Hence, holding both of them guilty for the same we direct both the OPs to ;

1. Refund cost of the mobile being Rs. 14,500/- with interest thereon @10% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile in question; and
2. Pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as damages for harassment; and
3. Pay Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.

All these amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of this order from this Forum, failing which rate of interest aforesaid shall be charged @15% per annum on the cost of the mobile, till the date of final payment.

12.  Let copy of the order be sent to all the parties free of cost in compliance of Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005, at their given addresses.
13. File be consigned to record room.
14. Announced on: - 28-02-2017

(N.K.Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member