DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 1044/14
Shri Manish Agarwal
S.o Shri Banarasi Agarwal
R/o 11/8-A, New Rashid Market
Delhi ….Complainant
Vs.
- M/s. Shri Sai Kripa Enterprises
F-24/1, Krishna Nagar, Delhi
- M/s. Service City
202, 2nd Floor, Sapna Plaza
Behind PSK, Vikas Marg
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092
- M/s. Ensure Support Services India Ltd.
R-51, Ist Floor, Main Vikas Marg
Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092
- M/s Salvia Communications Pvt. Ltd.
R-51, Ist Floor, Main Vikas Marg
Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092
- M/s. ZTE Corporation
Building No. 10, Tower-B, 6th Floor
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon – 122 002
Haryana ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 11.12.2014
Judgment Reserved for : 02.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 22.08.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Manish Agarwal has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. Shri Sai Kripa Enterprises, M/s. Service City, M/s. Ensure Support Services India Ltd., M/s Salvia Communications Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. ZTE Corporation for refund of cost of mobile phone of Rs. 6300/-, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 33,000/- as litigation charges.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one ZTE mobile phone make Blade EG No. A0000038754ADC on 14.01.2014 vide invoice No. 733 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs. 6,300/- with a warranty of one year. The phone started troubling the complainant and he deposited the same with OP-2 on 18.06.2014. It was repaired but despite repair, it was not functioning properly. It was also noticed by the complainant that after first repair, the set was changed with different IMEI number and one Mr. Ankit, Front Desk Officer of OP-2 mentioned about it by way of using word “Swap” on original bill, which showed that the phone of the complainant was changed by OP-2 with some other phone. It was further stated that the complainant sent two emails to the service centres of OPs, but of no avail. The other service centre of OP-4 refused to repair the handset on the ground that IMEI number was different i.e. A0000038754AFA. Thus, the set was deposited by the complainant with OP no. 3 and 4 on 07.08.2014. It was promised by service centre of OP-5 that they would inform the complainant after repairing the mobile phone but till date, nothing has been heard from them. Thus, it is stated that there was complete inefficiency of service on the part of OP no. 3, 4 and 5.
He has further stated that sub-standard mobile phone was supplied to the complainant by OP-5 in connivance with OP-4 knowingly about defective nature of the set. Thus, it is stated that OP-2 was liable for action as the complainant was cheated by swapping the mobile set without his knowledge and consent and the handset was still lying in illegal possession of OP no. 3 and 4.
It has further been stated that legal notice of 16.04.2015 was sent to OPs, which was duly served upon OP no. 1, 2 and 5, but they have not come forward to redress the grievance of the complainant. Notice to OP no. 3 and 4 was returned back. Hence, it has been stated that all the OPs were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,300/- being the cost of the mobile phone and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in addition to cost of Rs. 33,000/- towards litigation charges.
All the OPs were served. OP-5 put the appearance but during the course of proceedings, he stopped appearing. Hence, all of them were proceeded ex-parte.
3. In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.
4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The main grievance of the complainant has been that when he got his mobile repaired from OP-2, IMEI number was changed. Since, IMEI number was changed by OP-2, OP no. 3 and 4 who were also the service centres, refused to repair. From the testimony of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it is evident that the complainant purchased the handset and got deposited with OP-2 for service who changed IMEI number and OP no. 3 and 4 did not accept the same, though, it was deposited with them. OP-1 is the dealer of OP-5 from whom the handset was purchased. Since, OP-2 changed the IMEI number of the handset with whom it was first deposited for service, certainly, the negligence has been on the part of OP-2. Op no. 3 and 4 are the service centres of Op-5 and when deposited with them, they have not returned the handset, as stated by the complainant. Therefore, OP no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are jointly and severely liable for the deficient services. There is no liability of OP-1 as he was only the dealer from whom the complainant has purchased the handset. Thus, the liability can be fastened on Op no. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who were jointly and severely liable for their deficient service.
5. In view of that, we pass the following order:
- M/s. Service City (OP-2), M/s. Ensure Support Services India Ltd. (OP-3), M/s Salvia Communications Pvt. Ltd.(OP-4) and M/s. ZTE Corporation(OP-5) are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,300/- being the cost of mobile phone with 9% interest from the date of its first service i.e. 18.06.2014.
- Compensation for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental pain and agony. This includes the cost of litigation.
This order shall be complied within a period of 30 days, if the same is not complied, the complainant shall be entitled to recover the total amount with 9% interest from the date of order.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
