DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.175 of 2017
Date of institution: 02.03.2017 Date of decision : 10.06.2019
Kulwinder Singh S/o late Sh. Charanjit Singh R/o K.No. 86, Phase-6, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
- SFD Mobile Point, 36/2, 1st Floor, Kutty Mastry Street, Seven Walls, Chennai through its Director/Manager/ Incharge/Proprietor.
- Ebay, Shop Number 702, Chennai 1 ETC Tower, 200 Feet Road, Thuraipakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu through its Director/Manager/Incharge/Proprietor
- Coolpad Communication Pvt. Ltd, unit of Videocon Industries Pvt Ltd, 14KM Stones, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Chitegaon Aurangabad (Maharashtra) through its Director/Manager/ Incharge/Proprietor.
- HCL Services Ltd, SCO 66-67, Second Floor, Sector 17-A Chandigarh through its Director/Manager/Incharge/ Proprietor.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person
Ops ex-parte
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased one mobile set of Coolpad Mega 3 Triple Sim 4g VolTE online through OP No.2 for amount of Rs.7,998/- by placing order from Mohali. Delivery of mobile also took place at Mohali. OP No.1 is seller of mobile set, OP No.3 is manufacturer and OP No.4 is service centre. This mobile set stopped working on 20.02.2017 i.e. after 20 days of purchase. One week after using this mobile, complainant approached OP No.4, who after verifying invoice, prepaid order document issued by OP No.2 refused to repair the set on ground that the same was purchased through e-bay i.e. OP No.2, but service liable to be rendered for the product purchased through Amazon only. Thereafter complainant approached OP No.1, who informed complainant that he will send fresh bill so that the set can be got repaired. OP No.1 sent another bill through email on 22.02.2017. After receipt of said bill complainant was astonished to see that invoice attached with the email does not bear name of complainant, but price mentioned therein was Rs.6,999/-. Thereafter complainant called OP No.1 number of times, but the phone call was not picked up by OP No.1. On approach to OP No.2 through email dated 25.02.2017 nothing has been done and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of price of phone with compensation for mental and physical harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. OP No.1 to 3 are ex-parte in this case.
3. OP No.4 filed an application for dismissal of complaint on ground of territorial jurisdiction, but that application was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2018 by holding that as mobile received at Mohali and payment through online transaction conducted at Mohali as well as fault in the mobile took place at Mohali and as such this Forum has jurisdiction because cause of action in part atleast arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. In reply filed by OP No.4 it is claimed that Prabhakar Tiwari through whom the written statement filed, is an authorised representative of OP No.4 company which is duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. Complaint alleged to be false, baseless and frivolous, but despite that OP No.4 always provided best services to its customers. Allegations of careless and negligence on part of OP No.4 denied one by one each. It was claimed that complainant has not served any notice on OP No.4 and as such complaint filed for abusing process of law, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. OP No.4 tested the hand set and found that as per manufacturer, E-bay products are not covered under the warranty and that is why services to the complainant were denied. Same fact was conveyed to the complainant on the same day itself. OP No.4 has no concern with replacement of the product or refund of money because it is only a service centre. Besides, the defects in the mobile set do not fall in the warranty terms of OP No.4. OP No.4 has been arrayed as party just for getting illegal amount. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.
5. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-4/1 of Shri Prabhakar Tiwari its Deputy Manager and then closed evidence.
6. Written arguments not submitted by any of the party. None turned up for OP No.4 after closure of evidence and as such OP No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte. Arguments of complainant were heard and records gone through.
7. Perusal of invoice Ex.C-1 shows that complainant purchased Coolpad Mega 3 Triple Sim mobile with one year manufacturer warranty on 31.01.2017 from OP No.1 for amount of Rs.7,998/-. Prepaid slip Ex.C-2 issued by ebay for amount of Rs.7,998/- also has been placed on record and as such certainly these documents establishes that complainant purchased mobile set in question with one year manufacturer warranty by paying price of Rs.7,998/- through online. As OP No.4, service centre refused on 21.02.2017 to provide service by claiming that facility available for purchase through Amazon only and that is why complainant sent email Ex.C-3 dated 22.02.2017. In response to that, OP No.1 sent another invoice Ex.C-4 showing as if price of purchased mobile is Rs.6,999/- and the purchase is made through Amzaon.in. So this Ex.C-4 shows that though price of Rs.7,998/- accepted online from complainant, but bill for amount of Rs.6,999/- issued for enabling complainant to avail services from OP No.4 so that objection of non purchase through Amazon.in may not be taken by service centre i.e. OP No.4. As price of Rs.7,998/- online accepted, but bill of amount of Rs.6,999/- plus tax amount Rs.364.67 N.P. (Ex.C-4) issued and as such same shows as if OP No.1 adopted unfair trade practice by issuing two different bills for the single purchase made by complainant. That certainly is unfair trade practice, due to which complainant stood harassed and even suffered loss because of non getting of mobile repaired from OP No.4, due to purchase through ebay through invoice Ex.C-1. Protest in this respect lodged through email Ex.C-5 also. If OP No.1 knew that service centre will provide services for purchase effected through Amazon.in, then OP No.1 must not have issued invoice Ex.C-1 in the first instance alongwith prepaid slip Ex.C-2 for showing that purchase made by complainant from OP No.2. As online order placed through OP No.1 and as such virtually connivance of OP No.1 and 2 is there, due to which complainant could not avail service for repair of defective mobile. Fault in that respect remains with OP No.1 and 2 and not with manufacturer or service center i.e. OP No.3 and 4 and as such complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and 2 and not against OP No.3 and 4. Unfair trade practice in this case adopted by OP No.1 and 2 only and not by remaining OPs because of act of issue of bill in the name of OP No.2 knowing fully well that the service centre of OP No.3 namely OP no.4 will render services for removal of defects within warranty period of purchase made through Amazon.in only. Being so, complainant entitled for refund of paid amount of Rs.7,998/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 31.01.2017, date of issue of Ex.C-1 till payment. Complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses, but of reasonable amount, more so when refund of full paid price has been ordered with interest. Liability of OP No.1 and 2 will be joint and several but complaint against OP No.3 and 4 deserves to be dismissed because they neither adopted unfair trade practice and nor rendered deficient service. Thus fault of OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 led to harassment of complainant and that is why complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and 2 only. On receipt of price amount with interest and compensation amount as aforesaid, mobile phone in question will become property of OP No.1 and 2, who can claim mobile from the complainant, but after payment of above said amounts. Complainant will be bound to return back the mobile after receipt of payments referred above.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte against OP No.1 and 2 with direction to them to refund the received amount of Rs.7,998/- with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f 31.01.2017 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1and 2. Liability of OP No.1 and 2 held as joint and several. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest on these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses @ 6% per annum from today onward till payment. Complaint against OP No.3 and 4 is, however, dismissed. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
June 10, 2019
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
