Delhi

East Delhi

CC/913/2015

JASVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

                           CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        913 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  04/12/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 31/10/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          31/10/2017  In matter of

Mr. Jasvinder Singh, adult   

S/0 -Sh Atma Singh   

R/0- 26/1, New Govind Pura,   

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110051 ……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Optima Teleservices      

A- 160, 1^st Floor, Krishna Bhawan   

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi110092

 

2- Spice Mobile,     

19 A&B, Global Knowledge Park,   

Sec. 125, Noida, UP 201301…………………..…………..……….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

 Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased Spice mobile from OP2/Spice Mobile on 12/08/2015 for a sum of Rs 1999/-having model no. 6112 and IMEI no. 911458350419287 (Ex CW1/1).

Complainant stated that on 19/09/2015, mobile had camera and networking problem (Ex CW1/2) and was deposited with OP1 as authorized service centre vide job sheet no. 30100144F90418 (Ex. CW1/2) which was returned after repair in 7 days. Again problem of touch guard occurred, so mobile was deposited with OP1 on 19/10/2015 vide job sheet no. 30100144FA0516. Complainant stated that the touch guard was not repaired and OP 1 asked to pay for touch guard as it was not under warranty.

Complainant lodged complaint at State Consumer Commission (Ex. CW1/4) on dated 30/10/2015 and claimed refund of a sum of Rs 2068/- also before the Govt. Mediation Centre, but OPs did not appear. Thus seeing negligent services of OP, complainant suffered mental, physical harassment and financial loss. So, filed this complaint and claimed a sum of Rs 1999/- as cost of the mobile with compensation Rs 40,000/-and Rs 10,000/- litigation charges.  

After receiving notice, OP2/Spice Mobility submitted written statement and denied all the allegation as wrong. It was also stated by OP2 that complainant complaints were timely rectified as per job sheet on record, but due to breakage of touch screen which was not covered under standard warranty was asked to pay the cost of screen guard which complainant refused to get rectified his defect. So, this misconceived complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder to written statement of OP2, but did not file evidences on affidavit. OP submitted their evidence through Mr B M Agarwal, AR of OP, affirmed on affidavit that all the related evidence on record were true and correct. It was stated on affidavit that standard warranty becomes void when physical damage occur in the product. Here in this case, the touch screen was broken; hence the warranty was not applicable.   

Arguments were heard from complainant who was present in person. None were present from OP side. During arguments, complainant stated that the damaged mobile was with him and using it. The file was perused and order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was evident that the complainant had purchased mobile through online and had taken services under warranty period from OP1. As there was physical damage to the touch screen an evident from job sheet (Ex CW1/2), standard warranty was void as per terms and conditions of the warranty.

We have also gone through the case file and there was no evidence of complainant whether complaint was filed before State Consumer Commission or at Mediation Center. Also complainant could not prove that his mobile was covered under warranty for physical damage.

Hence, there was no deficiency in the service provided by OP1. Complainant has failed in proving deficiency of OPs. We come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and that being so the complaint deserves to be dismissed without any cost to order.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                               Sukhdev Singh  President