Delhi

North West

CC/757/2017

BUNDASHAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE HOTSPOT - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

                               CC No: 757/2017 (OLD No: 120/13/27)

D.No.________________________         Date: ________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

BUNDA SHAH (PROP.),

M/s B. SHAH INDUSTRIES,

R/o B-592, SUDARSHAN PARK,

MOTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI.… COMPLAINANT     

Versus

1. M/s SPICE HOT SPOT MOBILE CO.,

    C/o CELLUCOM RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    G-3, MANISH CHAMBER, B-1, DDA MARKET,

    PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063.

    ALSO AT: S. MOBILITY LTD.,

    S GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE PARK, 19A & 19B SEC.-125,

    NOIDA-201301 (U.P.).

2. CELLUCOM RETAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    G-3, MANISH CHAMBER, B-1, DDA MARKET,

    PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110063.

3. M/s DIGITECH SERVICE CENTRE,

    B-6/88, SECTOR-7, ROHINI,

    DELHI-110085.                                               … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                                        Date of Institution: 19.07.2013   

                                               Date of decision:01.12.2017

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

ORDER

1.       The complainant through his son namely Sh. Parveen Kumar who

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 1 of 8

          is also the Special Power of Attorney holder has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is carrying the business under the name and style of M/s B. Shah Industries and the complainant is a person of old age and therefore he has authorized his son Sh. Parveen Kumar who is the manager of the Proprietorship firm also. The complainant further alleged that the son of the complainant purchased a Spice mobile handset i.e. M-425 in the name of the firm having IMEI no. 911210400498658 & 911210400498666 from OP-2 for Rs.9,700/- on 03.09.2012 vide cash memo no. 6787. The complainant further alleged that within a week of purchase, the complainant started facing problems with the mobile handset as it was not able to connect to the network of any service provider and further it used to get switched off intermittently and the complainant approached OP-3 for rectification of the problem and the mobile handset was taken for the repair work by the authorized agent of OP-3 vide service request no. 30101154C90256 on 17.09.2012. On 26.09.2012, the mobile handset was returned with a lot of scratches on its body and the complainant complained about the scratches on the mobile handset but the executives of OP-3 failed toact on it and further said they are not responsible for it and while returning the mobile handset on 26.09.2012 it was categorically assured by the executives of OP-3

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 2 of 8

          that the sensor problem in the mobile handset is rectified and all the functions of the mobile handset are working perfectly but in reality it was not the case as the mobile handset yet again failed to connect with the network of any service provider and the complainant tried to connect the phone with sim cards of various networks but the problem in the mobile did not rectify and the phone started getting switched off again and again and OP-3 failed to resolve the problem in the mobile phone even after keeping it in the service center for 10 days. The complainant further alleged that the complainant again contacted the executives of OP-3 on the next day i.e. 27.09.2012 and the mobile handset was again handed over to the executives of OP-3 vide service request no. 30101154C90480 and it was again assured to the complainant that due to some mechanical failure the mobile handset is not working properly and the mobile handset needs to be repaired again and an e-mail was also sent by the complainant on 30.09.2012 toSh. Shailendra Kumar, service manager of OP-3 as well as to the customer care. The complainant further alleged that the complainant received an e-mail from e-mail ID of OP-1 i.e.

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 3 of 8

however the executives assured that the mobile handset is working well now as all the technical problems have been resolved but again the promises and the assurances made by OP-3 fell flat on the floor as the problem with respect to sensor of the mobile handset was not rectified. On the next day i.e. 02.11.2012, the complainant again brought the mobile handset to OP-3 as the mobile handset again had signal problems as it was not connecting with the network of service provider and also it was getting switched off again and again and on the same day the complainant having no other option available again handed over the mobile handset to OP-3 vide service request no. 30101154CB0019. The complainant also sent a mail to the service manager of OP-1 Sh. Shailendra Kumar and also to customer care on 06.11.2012 informing about the exact situation about the mobile handset’s problem and the complainant wrote another e-mail to Mr. Anuj Yadav, Mr. Shailendra Kumar, service managers of OP-1 and also to the customer care on 18.12.2012 notifying that the mobile handset was still lying with OP-3 vide service request no. 30101154CB0189 dated 26.11.2012 and again it was handed over to OP-3 on 01.12.2012 vide job sheet no. DT410. Despite various reminders, e-mails and personal visits to the OP-1 & OP-3 by the complainant but the OPs have failed to return the mobile handset in working condition as per the warrantee. The complainant further alleged

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 4 of 8

that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 02.03.2013 to all the OPs through his counsel by registered A.D. post and the A.D. card was received back for the notice to OP-3 and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund to the complainant the purchase consideration paid for the defective mobile handset amounting to Rs.9,700/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. from 03.09.2012 onwards until realization of the amount as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The complainant has also sought cost of litigation.

3.       Earlier the OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed written statement and in the written statement, OP-1 submitted that the complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable and is liable to be dismissed and the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant visited the service center and it was found that the handset was not repairable hence the mobile handset of the complainant swapped with another one. However subsequently none for OP-1 appeared and OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.02.2015 whereas proceedings against

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 5 of 8

OP-2 & OP-3 have been deleted vide order dated 06.08.2014.

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1.

5.       In order to prove the case Sh. Parveen Kapoor, Special Attorney of the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed SPA, original copy of retail invoice dated 03.09.2012 for purchase of Spice mobile of Rs.9,700/- issued by OP-1, copy of job sheet vide no. DT 410 dated 01.12.2012 issued by OP-3, copy of service request (SR) vide no. 30101154C90480 dated 28.09.2012, copy of e-mail communication dated 25.09.2012, 30.09.2012, 06.11.2012, 18.12.2012 & reply of OP-1 through e-mail dated 03.10.2012 and copy of legal notice dated 02.03.2013 sent by the complainant to all the OPs through his counsel by Regd. A.D. alongwith postal receipts& A.D. Card.

6.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after filing reply of this case, the OP-1 has not bothered to contest the case and has not lead any evidence and was proceeded ex-parte. Furthermore, no affidavit in evidence of any official of OP-1 has been filed to prove

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 6 of 8

          the defence of OP-1. It seems that there is no genuineness in the defence of OP-1.

7.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile handset to OPs within warranty period. Though OPs have tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the mobile handset but the defects have not been removed/corrected and the problem in the mobile handset has not been removed. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect or to replace the product. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of a new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defects in the product which is a branded mobile handset of a world fame manufacturer. It is not expected that a customer/complainant would have purchased mobile handset for 2 years only. As no evidence has been lead by OPs and as such it seems that OPs have no genuine defence. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

8.      Accordingly, the OP-1 is directed as under: -

i)        To pay to the complainantan amount of Rs.9,700/- as the cost price of mobile phone.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes litigation cost.

CC No. 757/2017                                                                         Page 7 of 8

9.       The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.     Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 1^stday of December, 2017.

BARIQ AHMAD     USHA KHANNA     M.K.GUPTA

(MEMBER) (MENBER)            (PRESIDENT)