Delhi

East Delhi

CC/907/2013

ANIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHREE BALA JI TELE SER. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         907/ 2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  14/10/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 03/04/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          05/04/2017  In matter of

Mr Anil Kumar Pandey,adult   

S/o Sh Raman Pandey

R/o  33/319, Trilok Puri

Delhi 110091…………………. .…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Shree Bala Ji Tele Services  

101, Patpargunj Village,

Mayur Vihar Phase I, Delhi 110091

 

2 M/s Globe Connexion & Services (service centre) 

Plot no. 23, 1^st floor, Veer Savarkar Block,

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

3-M/s Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.

MTS Tower, 3, Amarpalli Circle

Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021………………………..………….Opponents

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased a MTS mobile model no. MTAG 401 from Shree Balaji Teleservices /OP1 on 07/02/2013 vide IMEI A10000221377E04 and invoice no. 3621 for a sum of Rs 5000/-marked here as CW1/1 and CW1/1a.

The said mobile was not working properly from Aug.2013, so went to authorized service station / OP2 and submitted his mobile on 03/08/2013 vide rough paper work order without serial number,but had OP2 stamp on it as marked here CW1/2 & 2a.  

It was promised by OP2 to rectify the problem and would hand over the said mobile after 15 days, but despite of visiting number of times, OP2 did not rectify the problem or handed over the mobile to the complainant. Complainant also visited OP1 for refunding the cost of his mobile as defective product was sold to him. When the complainant did not receive any satisfactory reply from OP1 and OP2 so filed this complaint claiming replacement of his mobile with compensation of Rs 50,000/ as cost of harassment.

After receiving notices, none of the OPs put their appearance or submitted written statement and evidences. OP3 submitted an application stating that this complaint was not maintainable against OP3 as they were neither the manufacturer nor dealer of the said mobile, but they only provide network services and the complainant had not alleged any deficiency in network or any related telecommunication problem. Also OP3 stated that they could not be a necessary party as they were covered under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act and had license for providing telecom services under Sec. 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The deficiency pertains to billings and network congestions were their parts, but as there were no allegations against them, so they may be deleted as necessary party.

Number of opportunities were given to OP1 and OP2, but failed to appear so case proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed his Ex Parte evidences on affidavit and stated on oath that he had purchase his mobile from OP1 and OP2 had kept his mobile and did not repair his mobile though it was under warranty. He also submitted warranty card of the said mobile as marked here CW1/3 and CW1/4.

OP filed revision petition before Honble State Commission, Delhi vide RP no. 62/2015 against Ex Parte order of Forum dated 29/05/2015 for vacating Ex Parte order and opportunity was given to file their written version before the Forum subject to the cost. The Honble State Commission vide their order dated 12/10/2015 directed OPs/Appellant to pay the cost Rs 5000/-to the respondent/complainant and would appear on 29/10/2015 before the Forum. As there was typographical mistake in writing the amount of cost to Rs 500/-, it was typed to Rs 5000/- The said order of dated 12/10/2015 was rectified and corrected order for cost Rs 500/ was made vide dated 11/01/2016 as marked here as Ex. OPW/1 and 2.

After paying the cost to the complainant, OPs filed their written version through chief operating officer of OP3/Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. and stated that OP3 were neither the manufacturer of said mobile nor the service provider. The complainant had never alleged any deficiency in telecom matters nor network congestion. Hence they may be removed from the array of party. As complainant had alleged deficiency in services from OP2 and OP1, so liability may be fixed on them. OP3 through their chief Operating officer filed their evidence on affidavit where they have affirmed on oath that facts stated in the written version were correct and had no knowledge of any defect in the said mobile as they were not the manufacturer, rather complainant had made them scapegoat for OP1 and 2. Thus the complaint may be dismissed.  

The complainant was not putting his appearance since long and even on the date of arguments, none of the parties were present. Numbers of opportunities were given for arguments. After perusal of the file, order was reserved.  

We have perused all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant used his mobile without any problem for about 06 months and thereafter it had some software problem for which the mobile was taken to the authorized service centre/OP2. As there was no evidence whether the said mobile was returned to complainant by OP2 after rectifying the problem meaning thereby the said mobile is still with OP2. It is evident from CW1/1 and 1a that mobile was purchased from OP1, but being a seller, there was no deficiency in his service of selling the product, hence no liability can be fixed on OP1. As far as making of OP3/ M/s Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. as necessary party through amended memo of parties in his complaint and subsequent filing of their reply on oath, it is clear that OP3 were telecom service providers and not a manufacturer of the mobile. It has been also seen the warranty card submitted by the complainant at the time of submitting his evidence on affidavit where he stated that OP3 were the manufacturer, but after scrutinizing in detail, it has been found that the mobile has been manufactured by company Coolpad Overseas Ltd, Hong Kong. But CW1/4 does not show the MEID as mentioned by the complainant. Here in CW1/4, it is 0100002213767EQ with S/N 001205120000644 and in India, the Shyam Telecom Ltd are the importer. The said warranty card showing the cost of mobile Rs 9990/- and the date of manufacturing is May, 2012. This means, complainant had managed from somewhere this warranty card and submitted with affidavit. This amounts to ignorance of facts and intentionally submitting some other evidence for his benefit. Also OP3 has nothing to do with the importer/Shyam Telecom Services and Coolpad co.    

 

Hence, we come to the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed, but as the said mobile is with OP2/service centre, so taking this fact in consideration, we direct OP2 to remove the defect within 15 days from the date of receiving of this order and shall hand over the mobile in good working condition. OP2 shall repair the mobile in six months in future time also, if any defect arise, but subject to the condition if damaged part require replacement, will be done and OP2 then charge for that part from complainant. If OP2 fails in complying the order, then OP2 shall pay 50% of the cost of mobile with Rs 1000/-as compensation for harassment caused to the complainant. The total cost then shall be Rs 2500/+1000/-total 3500/-. There shall be no order to cost.  

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and then case file be consigned to Record Room. 

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                            Mrs  Harpreet Kaur

           Member                                                                                                                              Member

                                                         

                                                          Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                                 President