Delhi

North East

CC/466/2014

Shri Anuj Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jun 2018

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. 466/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Anuj Tyagi S/o Shri Ram Niwas Tyagi R/o Village Mandola, P.S. Loni, Distt Ghaziabad, UP		Complainant
		Versus
	1         2	M/s. Spice India Ltd. Regd. Office Global Knowledge Park 19-A & 19-B, Sector 125, NOIDA 201307.   M/s. New Mobile Care India Pvt. Ltd. WZ-109, Street No. 1, Sadh Nagar Palam Colony, New Delhi 110045		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		02.12.2014
			RESERVED FOR ORDER:		31.05.2018
			DATE OF DECISION:		05.06.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. The complainant has submitted vide the present complaint that he had purchased one mobile handset Spice Model 506 vide IMEI No. 911313250863243 manufactured by OP1 on 15.04.2014 for a total sum of Rs. 6,900/- against invoice                no. 528 from M/s. Y.K. Telecom (arraigned as OP2 in the original complaint) which is a retail outlet. It has been submitted by the complainant that OP3 induced him to purchase an insurance policy in respect of above phone thereby covering the lost, stolen and damages to the phone alongwith providing home service (pick & drop facility) in case of any fault in the phone under the “Cashless Protection Plan” of OP3 and therefore the complainant, having been induced by such representation of OP3,  took the said policy on 16.04.2014 vide Plan ID No. NMC-49687 by making an additional payment of Rs. 690/- which was 10% of total cost of mobile phone and insurance plan was granted for two years from date of purchase of mobile phone w.e.f. 15.04.2014 to 15.04.2016. It has been submitted that OP2 is the authorized dealer of OP3 of the said plan and therefore had affixed its seal on the said receipt of Cashless Protection Plan. It has been submitted further that after 2-3 months of purchase, the said mobile handset started creating problems in its operation as its touch failed to work properly and it became totally useless / inoperable for the complainant for the purpose of making or receiving any phone call or for any other purpose. Thereafter, the complainant made a telephonic call to OP3, who asked address of complainant and assured that within 24-48 hours the agents would approach the complainant and would take the phone for its repairing purpose against due receipt. However, waiting for one week, none reached the complainant from OP3 and as such the complainant had to approach OP1 in the month of August 2014 to get it repaired properly but the said mobile handset was received against the receipt and the complainant was asked to come after 10 days. It has been submitted further that the complainant visited service centre of OP1 after 10 days and he was provided the handset with the assurance that the same would work properly, while the receipt was again got submitted by OP’s service centre. However, the complainant found that the mobile hand set is not working properly and the problem was as it was earlier.  Thereafter, the complainant made several calls to OP3 but no proper response was given and the grievance of complainant was never redressed by OP3 despite and contrary to assurance given at the time of purchase of policy of good service and pick and drop facility just a call away given by OP3 to complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted to OP2, who asked him to submit the handset and assured that the same would be serviced properly and OP2 also gave endorsement of receipt of the phone on the back leaf of bill on 25.08.2014 and asked the complainant to collect the phone by end of September 2014. However, at the nearing end of September 2014, the complainant was provided handset but the problem therein was not rectified for the reasons best known to OPs. On 27.09.2014, the complainant had to submit the said handset to the service centre of OP1 against receipt and complainant was asked to come and collect the said phone within a week but again after one week, the complainant found the problem as it was earlier and it was made clear to complainant that the said phone could not be repaired and it was surely having some manufacturing defect. The complainant had submitted that since the OPs had totally failed to provide the service and did not redress the grievance and on being contacted, the OPs had adopted unfair trade practices which had caused mental pain and agony to complainant and therefore the complainant got served a legal notice dated 14.10.2014 upon the OPs through his counsel vide speed post which was dispatched on 15.10.2014, thereby calling upon all the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant and the legal notice was received by the OPs but till date they did not bother and no better service was provided by the OPs. Therefore, the complainant had felt cheated and defrauded by false representation of the OPs, who have indulged in mal-trade practice and are deficient in service and therefore vide the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed by this Forum to replace the defective handset in question with a new one and OPs be directed to also pay Rs. 50,000/- (jointly or severally) to complainant towards the compensation for irreparable loss and mental agony and  Rs. 22,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complainant has attached the original retail invoice / bill bearing no. 528 dated 15.04.2014 for an amount of Rs. 6900/- towards the purchase of Spice 506 mobile phone which had been issued by OP2 with endorsement made on back-leaf thereof by OP2 of receipt of mobile with touch problem, original bill of Cashless Protection Plan dated 16.04.2014 issued by OP3, a copy of service request form/ job sheet dated 27.09.2014 of OP1 service centre and copy of legal notice dated 14.10.2014 with postal receipts.
2. Notices were issued to OPs for appearance on 26.12.2014. OP1 & OP3 appeared on 26.12.2014 and received copy of complaint alongwith annexures but neither of them filed their written statements or appeared thereafter. OP2 did not appear despite service. Hence, all the three OPs were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 13.03.2015.
3. Complainant has filed Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments reiterating his grievance in the present complaint. The complainant has exhibited the retail invoice, Cashless Protection Plan policy, back-leaf of bill, job card/ receipt of service centre of OP1 and legal notice with postal receipts in his evidence. The complainant submitted before this Forum on 09.02.2018 for deletion of OP2 from array of parties and deletion of clause-(a) of the prayer clause in the complaint seeking replacement of mobile and therefore filed amended memo of parties deleting OP2 from array of parties and amending prayer clause. Therefore, OP3 in the original complaint is now OP2 for all purposes.
4. We have heard oral arguments of the complainant and have perused documentary evidence placed on record by complainant in support of his contentions. We are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal by the OPs, the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs in failure to resolve the defects in the mobile phone despite the same being within the insurance cover. OP2 is the insurer of the said mobile phone and was liable for undertaking repair work of the said mobile within the insurance cover. The mobile was purchased in April 2014 and has started mal functioning in July/ August 2014 and as per terms and policy conditions of Cashless Protection Plan, OP2 was bound to pay 40% of the price of the handset since it ecame dysfunctional within 4 months of purchase, however, complainant has deleted the relief sought towards the defective mobile phone and has only prayed for damages. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to complainant towards compensation for loss and mental agony and harassment inclusive of litigation charges payable by OP2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 9% interest p.a. shall also be payable by the OP2 to the complainant on the awarded amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the date of award till realization.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 05.06.2018) 

     

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member