Shop CJ Online Marketing Firm V/S Sukhwinder Singh
Sukhwinder Singh filed a consumer case on 02 Jan 2017 against Shop CJ Online Marketing Firm in the Nawanshahr Consumer Court. The case no is CC/84/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Jan 2017.
Punjab
Nawanshahr
CC/84/2016
Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Shop CJ Online Marketing Firm - Opp.Party(s)
In person
02 Jan 2017
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.
Consumer Complaint No : 84 of 20.09.2016
Date of Decision : 02.01.2017
Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh.Shinderpal R/o Rolu Colony, Ward No.2, Near Gurudwara, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.
….Complainant
Versus
Shop CJ (Online Marketing Firm), 6th Floor, Star CJ Plaza, Doctor DB Marg, Near Apsara Cinema, Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007, India through its Managing Director.
NSA Tradex Private Limited, Village Raj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, PO Patli District Gurgaon, Haryana, PIN – 122503, through its Manager/Proprietor.
Bagga Electronics, Near Khara Khoo Chowk, Near Partap Chowk, Hoshiarpur Contact- 988922602, Authorized Service Center of Intex Technologies India Pvt Ltd, through its Manager/Proprietor.
Intex Technologies India Pvt. Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi – 110020 Contact No.011-41610224.
Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
For Complainant : Sh.Kulwinder Kumar, Authorized Rep.
For OPs No.1,3&4 : Ex parte.
For OP-2 : DAW vide order dated 03.11.2016
ORDER
PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
This complaint presented by Sukhwinder Singh, wherein it is alleged that he purchased a mobile make intex, black colour vide order No.20160816102257 for Rs.2698/- from OP-1 and get delivery through OP-2. The delivery was made to complainant on 19.08.2016 at Balachaur, where he make the payment of Rs.2698/- and accordingly invoice was issued and assurance was given to the complainant that this mobile phone having good quality and if there will be any problem in the mobile set then the same will be collected back. But phone in question started giving problem from very beginning. The light of the display used to go and then the sound was stopped to hearing. Accordingly, the complainant make a complaint on No.18605001860 on 20.08.2016 to the OP-1 and OP-1 gave assurance that the mobile will be re-collected and price will be refunded within 7 days. Thereafter, OP-1 gave telephonic call to the complainant and send the complainant to the OP-4 and further OP-4 gave direction to the complainant to get the problem solved from OP-3 and then complainant on August 22, 2016 went to OP-3 i.e. authorized service center for checking of mobile phone who issued the job sheet and OP-3 gave assurance that whenever, price of the mobile phone get from the company then the phone will be collected and price will be refunded but after lapse of one month neither the mobile phone was collected by the OPs nor price of the mobile phone was returned to the complainant and it is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and also gave mental tension, harassment to the complainant and as such complainant is entitled to original price of the mobile in question after returning the same to the OPs and further complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.
Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly complainant during pendency of this complaint, withdraw this complaint against OP-2. Whereas, OPs No.1,3 and 4 were served but did not come present and ultimately, OPs No.1,3 and 4 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 27.10.2016.
In order to prove its ex parte claim, the complainant through authorized representative i.e. Kulwinder Kumar tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith some documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
We have heard representative of complainant and also scanned Photostat copies of documents very minutely.
In nutshell, the allegations of the complainant in the complaint that he purchased the mobile phone make Intex, Black Colour for Rs.2698/- and its delivery was made to the complainant through OP-2 on 19.08.2016 and invoice of the mobile phone is Ex.C-1 and further in order to establish the allegation made in the complaint. The complainant tendered his affidavit through his representative whereby he retreated/repeated the allegations, as made in the complaint that mobile set so purchased by complainant vide retail invoice Ex.C-1, started giving problem in the display and accordingly he approached to OP-1 who sent complainant to OP-4 and further OP-4 advised the complainant to met OP-3 i.e. authorized service center and accordingly the mobile phone was got checked from OP-3, who issued job sheet which shows that there is problem in display in the said mobile set. Despite assurance that the price will be returned after collecting the mobile phone, but OP No.1,3 and 4 failed to return the price of the defective mobile phone and as such we came to conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1,3 and 4 and thus complainant is entitled for relief claim.
In the light of above detailed discussion, this complaint of complainant is ex parte partly accepted to the effect that OPs No.1, 3 and 4 are directed to return the original price of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.2698/- to the complainant after getting recollect the mobile phone in question and also pay interest on the price of the mobile phone @9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 19.08.2016 till realization and further OPs No.1,3 and 4 pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
Entire compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
File be indexed and consigned to record.
Dated 02.01.2017
(Kanwaljeet Singh) (Karnail Singh)
Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.