Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/478

SUMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE HOTSPOT - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 02.08.2013

Complaint Case. No.478/13                                          Date of order:    30.07.2018

IN  MATTER OF

Sumit Jindal S/O Late Shri Shyam Lal Jindal R/O 2094/6-B, Gali No.16, Near Railway Phatak, Prem Nagar, New Delhi-110008                                                                                                                                                                                              Complainant

VERSUS

Spice Hot Spot, Spice Retail Ltd., X-45, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008                                                                                                                                                  

Spice Retail Ltd., Corporate Office-S Global Knowledge Park, 19A 19B, 2^nd Floor, Sec-125, Noida-201301(U.P) India

 

REGD. OfFICE:- Village Bidarwal Libana, Post Office Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan (H.P) 173205                                

                                                                                                                        Opposite party-1

 

Taneja Electronics (Authorized Service Center) J-II-81, Sanjay Market, Wazirpur J.J. Colony, New Delhi-110052

                                                                                                                        Opposite party-2

 

                                                                                                                       

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        Brief facts stated by the complainant for disposal of present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Spice Tablet Cell Phone having Model “MI 1010 Silver” from OP-1 for sale consideration of Rs. 12,900/- on 28.01.2013 vide invoice no. 128135802. The Tablet was screen dead and the complainant requested the OP-1 to replace it. The OP-1 told the complainant to visit the OP-2 for repairs. The OP-2 replace the dead screen of the Tablet Cell Phone  on 06.02.2013. But again after 15-20 days the Tablet Cell Phone become dead and the complainant visited the OP-2 who changed the screen of the Tablet Cell Phone again.  The Tablet Cell Phone was not connecting with the dongle and again become dead. The OP-2 change the screen of the Tablet Cell Phone and charged Rs.4,200/- from the complainant for the same. Thereafter, the charger of the Tablet Cell Phone stopped working and OP-2 again change the charger of Tablet Cell Phone. Meanwhile the charger jack also become dead and the complainant visited OP-2 who told that warranty had expired and payment has for to be made for charger Jack. The complainant contacted customer care center of OP-1 and they informed him that the warranty is for six months for the battery and charger and for the Tablet Cell Phone for one year. Tablet Cell Phone remained with OP service center for 10-50 days every time and to be 50-60 days in total.

                        The complainant asked OP-1 & 2 to replace the tablet cell phone as it was not functioning properly since date of purchase. But OPs-1 & 2 refuse to replace the defective tablet cell phone. The complainant incurred losses to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- due to non functioning of tablet from inception. Therefore, there is deficiency in service, mis-representation and selling of defective goods by the OP.

                        Hence the present complaint for directions to the OPs-1 & 2 to pay Rs. 40,000 as compensation for mental pain, agony and harrasment and for deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- for the charges incurred by the complainant.

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the Ops. OP-1 filed  reply to the complaint and thereafter none put in appearance so all Ops were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.2017.

                        The complainant was asked to file ex-parte affidavit of evidence he tendered the same on 16.05.2017 reiterating the facts stated in the complaint he relied on copy of invoice and job sheet dated 06.02.2013.

                        Main controversy of the complaint is that the tablet cell phone was defective since the time of purchase. Though the OP from time to time gave the service for the same but later they refused to replace the defective tablet cell phone.

                        The version of the complainant that the tablet cell phone since inception was not working is not substantiated by the documents. The Op in his reply stated that the new sealed handset was provided to the complainant. But this fact was not rebutted by the complainant. The complainant is unable to prove his version. He only relied on one job sheet dated 06.02.2013 but unable to produce any other document which shows that the tablet developed fault time and again.

                        Hence the complaint has no merit. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed without cost. File be consigned to record room.                 

 

Order pronounced on :- 30.07.2018

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                              PRESIDENT