Delhi

North East

CC/129/2014

Joginder Singh Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smile Talk - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 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.129/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Joginder Singh Saini S/o Late Shri Bhawani Prasad R/o 1/2914, Ram Nagar, Near Post Office, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-32.	Complainant
	Versus
1       2       3	Smile talk R/o 1/2391, Main Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32.   V- Care Insurance Service, Website:- www.vcarepack.com Customer care No. 91-11-69414540.   87, Mistry Industrial Complex, MIDC Cross Road ‘A’, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 093, India.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	11.04.2014
	DATE OF DECISION      :	27.04.2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint thereby stating that he purchased a mobile Model No. I Ball Andi 5L of OP3 make from OP1 on 14-5-2013 for Rs. 9,990/-. The same day the said mobile was insured by OP2 covering all type of defects including physical damage and liquid damage in the mobile, by paying Rs. 699/-.

After 4-5 months a defect arose in the said mobile. To get the same rectified complainant visited service centre of OP3, at Shakarpur Delhi. After checking, the service centre told there is liquid damage in the mobile which was the responsibility of OP2 only. Therefore, complainant lodged a complaint to OP2 vide complaint No. 3310 issued by OP2 with the assurance to collect the mobile for rectification but nobody visited complainant’s place to collect the same. On 7-12-13 another complaint to OP2 vide No. 3381 was also lodged by the complainant but even thereafter nobody turned up, from OP2, for rectification of his mobile.

Finding no way out complainant visited OP1, from whom the mobile was purchased, who also told that representative of OP2 shall collect the mobile but even    after 4 months nobody turned up, on behalf of OP2, and the mobile has neither been rectified nor replaced. Complainant, pleading deficiency in service and consequent harassment and mental agony, has prayed for the directions to OPs to rectify the mobile in question alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  

2. After notice though one Mr. Prakash Mani, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP1 and received copy of the complaint on 10.06.2014 but no reply filed by it and nobody has been appearing on behalf of OP1 since 1-8-2014 till date. OP2 and OP3 filed their respective replies. As per reply filed by OP3 the complaint is not maintainable being without jurisdiction as it has its office in Mumbai, beyond jurisdiction of this forum. Besides complainant has not issued any notice to it therefore complainant is not entitled to file the present complaint against it. Moreover, complaint shows no cause of action against it hence no primafacie case is made out against it. Even otherwise complainant visited service centre of OP3 situated at Laxmi Nagar on 29-10-2013 for alleged networking problem which was rectified by its service centre and the mobile hand set was returned back to the complainant on 30-10-2013 after rectification. Thereafter complainant did not turn up to its service centre. Even otherwise whatever the allegations are only against OP1 and OP2 and not against it.
3. OP2 by filing its reply states that OP2 has not done any insurance but provided an extended warranty for 2 years against physical and liquid damage and one year service warranty. Further warranty also specify to compensate percentage of current value according to use of hand set from the date of purchase. Regarding defect in mobile OP2 states that complainant has never contacted it and appraised the defect to OP2. Complaint numbers given in the complaint are wrong as these complaint numbers does not belong to it as registration for any complaint in its office starting only by the alphabet ‘D’ while the complaint numbers given by the complainant start with ‘B’. OP2 also states that if ‘B’ is taken as ‘D’ complaint number 3310 is registered in the name of one Jatin of Hari Nagar New Delhi against Mobile No. 9654732739 while another complaint number 3381 is registered in the name of Shri Mehtab, Vikas Puri New Delhi against Mobile No. 9312220132. However in the reply OP2 states that complainant can still avail its services if contacted. OP2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint being devoid of any merit.
4. In rejoinder to the reply of OP3 complainant denying, all the defenses raised, has reiterated the contents of the complaint. In rejoinder to reply of OP2 complainant states that OP2 has admitted its liability with respect to warranty provided. Further denying that complainant never approached OP2 and the complaint is without cause of action against OP2 complainant has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Complainant and OP2 filed their respective affidavits of evidence while OP3 opted not to file evidence as the defect in question is covered under warranty given by OP2 only.
5. Heard the parties and perused the record.
6. Perusal of record show that the fact of liquid damage is not specifically denied by any of the OPs while OP3 admits the approaching of complainant to its service centre at Laxmi Nagar within warranty period for curing the defect in the mobile. OP3 says when complainant approached to its service centre there was networking problem which was  rectified and thereafter complainant did not visit service centre. On the other hand complainant complaints that he visited service centre who after checking detected liquid damage for which complaint to OP2, the warranty provider was lodged. OP2, though denying complaint to it of any defect has not specifically denied, that mobile in question has no liquid damages or it has not provided warranty against liquid damage or the warranty provided by OP2 was not continued.
7. On the basis of above findings we conclude that there was defect of liquid damage in the mobile, cause of action to cure the same arises only against OP2.
8. Regarding OP2’s denial of receiving any complaint even if taken as correct OP2 can’t deny knowledge of the defect after receiving the present complaint. Even thereafter OP2 did not cured the defect but just shown its willingness to rectify the same.
9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that complainant has successfully established his case against OP2, while OP1 & OP3 are not liable for the defect as per warranty provided by OP3.
10.  Thus holding OP2 guilty for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant, we direct OP2 to:-

1. rectify the defect in the mobile, to the satisfaction from the complainant, failing which pay the cost of the mobile; and
2. pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with litigation cost of Rs. 2,500/- to the complainant.

11.  This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Beyond that OP2 shall pay interest       @ 12% p.a. on the cost of the mobile till final compliance of the order.
12.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

13.   File be consigned to record room.
14.   Announced on  (27.04.2017)   

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member