Delhi

East Delhi

CC/347/2015

SUNIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 347/15

 

Sunil Kumar Chandel

S/o Shri Seetaram Singh

R/o B-44, Block-B, Gazipur Village

Delhi – 110 096                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. North India Top Company (P) Ltd.

Warehouse’s & Logistics Park

68, Vill. Kapriwas & Malpura,

Taluq Dharuhera, Distt. Rewari – 122 110

 

2. Optimum Teleservices

A-160, 1^st Floor, Krishna Bhawan

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-92

 

3. Spice Mobile

D-1, Sector – 3

Noida – 201 301                                                              …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 14.05.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 10.12.2018

Judgement Passed on: 13.12.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Sunil Kumar Chandel against North India Top Company (P) Ltd. (OP-1), Optimum Teleservices (OP-2) and Spice Mobile (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that on 07.11.2014, the complainant booked a Spice mobile by paying an amount of Rs. 4,999/- (wrongly mentioned      Rs. 3,000/-) and received on the same day vide invoice no. RL-162067 and IMEI no. 911353105739008, 911353105739016. 

            It was stated that from the very first day, the mobile was defective and after 4 months, the mobile created the problem.  The complainant visited at the office of OP-2 and deposited his mobile vide job sheet no. 30100144F40404.  He was assured that they will return the mobile within 7 days.  The complainant was shocked when officials of OP-2 demanded a sum of Rs. 1,225/- (wrongly mentioned Rs. 1,120/-) for repair of the mobile phone as the phone was under warranty.

            The complainant has stated that OPs have failed to provide service to the complainant due to which he suffered extreme mental agony.  It was the case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the cost of the mobile phone of Rs. 4,999/-; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.      

3.  

Notice of the complaint was given to OP-2, however, they have not appeared inspite of service.Hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.

Written statement on behalf of OP-3 filed in which they have stated that every genuine handset carries limited warranty of one year against any manufacturing defect and in case of any damage, limited warranty of the handset becomes void. The complainant never visited the service centre during first four months from the date of purchase of the handset

It was stated that complainant visited the service centre on 17.04.2015 for repair of the handset.It was found that the handset was dead and PCNB of the handset was Water Logged.Accordingly, the handset was rejected at the entry level screening to be considered under the Limited Warranty and was declared as “Warranty Void”.Hence, the complainant refused to pay repair charges, the handset was returned to the complainant without repair.

Further, it was clearly mentioned in the job sheet that he handset was being received as per “Limited Warranty Terms and Conditions” and Spice may refuse to undertake repair of warranty void handset which includes liquid logged, unauthorised tampering, damage due to act of god like rain, storm, fire, lightning etc.Other facts have also been denied.

4. Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 and OP-3, wherein they have controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted their pleas.
5.  

In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Rahiv Mehra, working with OP-1, who have deposed on oath.He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.He has got exhibited documents such as authority letter (Ex.R1W-1/1), copy of invoice (Ex.R1W-1/2) and copy of warranty card (Ex.R1W-1/3).

NO evidence filed on behalf of OP-3.

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and OP-1 and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of    OP-1 that no allegations have been leveled against them and there has been no liability of their’s as they were the seller.  Counsel for OP-3 have also taken the plea that they were the manufacturer of the handset and there was no liability of their’s as the handset was out of warranty.

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that both of them are liable as there was deficiency on their part.

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the service report which has been placed by both the parties.  If a look is made to the service report, it is noticed that the handset was “Dead set, PCB liquid logged…..”.  As per the terms and conditions of the limited warranty, it has been stated that repair of warranty void handset which include liquid logged…….. Thus, from the service report, it comes out that the handset was liquid logged due to which warranty of handset becomes warranty void. 

            The fact that handset was liquid logged which led to warranty void, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP-1, he being the seller and OP-3, being the manufacturer.  Even, no deficiency can be attributed to OP-2 who remained ex-parte.  Therefore, the complaint is devoid of any merit which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President