Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/298/2014

Parveen Kumar Goyal S/o Tirlok Chand Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Mobile Station Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No…298 of 2014.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 09.07.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 02.02.2016.

Parveen Kumar Goyal aged about 45 years son of Sh. Tirlok Chand Goyal resident of House No. 431, Krishna Building Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Spice Mobile Limited, D-1, Sector-3, NOIDA-201301 (U.P) through its Managing Director.  
2. North India, Top Company Private Limited, TCI Supply Chain Solution, C/o Acorn, Warehouse’s Logistics Park 68, Village Kapriwas & Malpura Taluq Haryana Dharuhera, through its Proprietor/partner/Direfctor.
3. Spice Retail Limited, authorized Service Centre Sidhi Relecom Show Room No. 59-C, 1^st Floor Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner/Director. Authorized Service Centre, Shop No.2, Ist Floor, Near Jain sons jeweler & Near

                                                                                                        …Respondents.

                         

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Respondents No.2 & 3 already ex-parte.       

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Parveen Kumar Goel has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to. replace the defective mobile set of complainant with new one of the same brand and specifications or to refund the invoice price amounting to Rs. 9999/- and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, financial  loss suffered by him and cost of proceedings.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Spice Quad Core Phablet- Pinnacle Stylus 550 on 19.3.2014 through Internet, and made payment in cash on delivery vide order No. 74766009. On 23.3.2014, the complainant had received the demanded mobile phone vide invoice NITCDRH/DRH/03/2014/142 dated 20.3.2014 and had made the payment of Rs. 9999/- to the OP No.2. It has been further alleged that after receiving the said mobile phone hand set, the complainant started using the same but on 23.4.2014 the complainant had to make a call to someone else, by using the said mobile phone and surprisingly while talking, received on electric shock from the touch of the mobile phone due to which received cracks therein. The said mobile phone was brought to the shops of OP No.3 who retained the said mobile hand set vide its request No. 07100870E40292 vide their invoice No. 1420744 and at the time of retaining the mobile phone, OP No.3 had assured that the touch of the mobile will be replaced with new one and said process will take 7 days. After the said assured period, the complainant visited the shop of OP No. 3 for taking the mobile phone but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the OP No.3 refused to do any needful and directed him to leave his shop otherwise he should be ready to face dire consequences.  As such, the complainant has suffered and is still suffering great mental agony, pain and torture at the hands of OPs which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.2 failed to appear despite service through registered AD and OP No.3 through process server, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.9.2014 & 21.8.2015 respectively. However Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and filed written statement on behalf of O No.1 by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit it has been submitted that Spice Mobiles Ltd. Is a part of Spice Corp. as billion multi faceted group with an exclusive telecom system with an exclusive telecom eco-system in India. Spice mobiles ltd. has heralded a new chapter in the history of Indian Mobile telephony by launching the first ever dual mode phones. The OP No.1 is pioneer in the field of such type of dual mode phones. There is no complaint of like sort from any corner of country. It has been further submitted that the complainant never entrusted his spice mobile either to the opposite party No.1 because no job card ever issued in this regard. Now, the complainant by means of present complaint wants to have new spice mobile in lieu of this mobile phone set, fee of cost, purely by putting false and frivolous allegations against the OP No.1 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of retail invoice as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Service request dated 23.4.2014 as Annexure C-2, and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant whereas on the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 did not tender any document in the evidence of OP No.1 and its evidence was closed by court order on 24.12.2015.

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the spice Mobile set vide Invoice No. NITCDRH/DRH/03/2014/142 dated 20.3.2014 for Rs. 9999/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had received the mobile phone on 23.3.2014 and at the time of delivery the complainant had made the payment of Rs. 9999/- to the Op No.2 but due to electric shock, touch of the mobile phone received cracks therein when he was talking with someone on 23.4.2014. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the defects were brought into the notice of OP No.1 who kept the mobile set with it vide its service request No. 07100870E40292 invoice No. 1420744 with the assertion to collect it after one week but they failed to remove the defect form the mobile and did not return the same till date. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered original job sheet and made a statement that till date the mobile set in question is lying with the service centre i.e. OpNo.3. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the complainant never entrusted his spice mobile either to the OP No.1 because no job card ever issued in this regard and now the complainant by means of present complaint wants to have new spice mobile in lieu of mobile phone free of costs, purely by putting false and frivolous allegations against the OP No.1.

 8.                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 has took first plea that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint whereas the OP No.3 is authorized service centre of OP No.1 who has issued the job sheet Annexure C-3. Meaning thereby that partly cause of action has arisen at Yamuna Nagar, so, this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

9.                     Moreover, the counsel for the OP No.1 has denied all the allegations of the complainant such as that complainant neither approached to service Centre nor any job sheet has been issued to the complainant.  It is an admitted fact that the defects in the mobile set were brought to the notice of OP No.3 on 23.4.2014 ( as per Annexure C-2) i.e. just after about one month of its purchase but they failed to rectify the defect in the mobile set in dispute. As the mobile set in question was within warranty period, having no other alternative, the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievances.

10.                   After going through the above noted circumstances, it reveals that the complainant might have suffered some hardship which enforced him to file the present complaint. It is also not disputed that the mobile in question was under the currency of warranty at the time of alleged defect and there is no reason to disbelieve or to discredit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his unrebutted supporting affidavit Annexure CX, but also from the copy of job sheet Annexure C-2 which shows that the mobile hand set in question was taken by the service centre with problem of electric shock while talking on walking and touch crack. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have also opted not to contest this case of the complainant, as they are ex-parte, this fact also points towards the correctness of the case of the complainant. As above noted, selling of the mobile hand set by the OP No.2 to the complainant, is admitted. It is, thus, very clear that a defective mobile hand set was sold to the complainant. The service Centre could not bring it in order, rather on the other hand, it was kept back and the mobile hand set was not returned to the complainant repaired or unrepaired despite his repeated visits rather he was misbehaved. It is certainly gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11.                   In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that OPs have failed to provide proper services to the complainant qua the mobile set in question and thus they are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant. Hence, in these circumstances, we have no option except to allow the present complaint.

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund the cost of mobile set amounting to Rs. 9999/ to the complainant within a period of 30 days as the old mobile set is lying with the service centre since the very beginning, failing which the OPs are directed to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 02.02.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.