Delhi

North East

CC/205/2016

YASH PAL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 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. 205/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Yashpal Kumar S/o Vijendra Singh R/o B-76 A, Bhagirti Vihar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
	Wizard Digitek Computers pvt Ltd C-6/232, Yamuna Vihar. Delhi -53.   Gurukul Technology for Mobiles  F-671, 1st Floor, Khajori Khas main Opposite Bhajanpura Bus stand, Delhi-94.   Spice Mobiles Plot No. 19A 19B, Sector 125, Noida-201301, S Global Knowledge park -0120-3859000.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

09.08.2016 02.04.2018 03.04.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has purchased a Spice X Life 520 HD mobile bearing IMEI No. 911483900074820 on 01.05.2016 from OP1 for a sum of Rs. 5700/- vide invoice No. WD/02206/2016-17. The above mobile handset started malfunctioning within a week of purchase as its display was not functioning. The complainant has reported that he had requested OP1 to replace the handset but OP1 asked him to contact OP2 and as such on 13.06.2016, he visited OP2 service centre at Bhajanpura and where he was told that his mobile would be repaired within 20 days as the mobile set would be sent to OP3 i.e. Mobile Company. When he contacted OP3, he was told that the parts are out of stock in the company and as such his mobile would be returned after 15 days. Thereafter he visited the company through Mr. Imran and again he was told that due to non availability of parts, it would take another 15 days to repair the mobile. The complainant had intimated that in the absence dual sim mobile set, he is out of connection with both contact number viz 8802475857 and 9654960323. He has further submitted that he is facing problem at the service centre for the last two months and lot of his time had been wasted. Moreover, his commercial interest had been affected as he use to do a part time job in a export company alongwith his studies where he used to send the sample of clothes to other persons through mobile but due to mobile being out of order, he had to leave the job. He has further submitted that he was facing problem in his studies as he is doing the course of B LIB from IGNOU and the teacher had made a group of B LIB students on whatsapp so that he could get the knowledge of assignments and practical but due to non-availability of mobile, he had to visit IGNOU personally. In addition to above he had applied for different government jobs and for knowing the results, he had to go to cyber café. He did not get to know that there was entrance Exam of head Constable in CRPF because of absence of mobile. Further the complainant was not able to get the benefit of technology of latest online applications for preparing for the examination like primary teacher exam in the KBS, UP police and Banks. As such he is suffering from mental agony and therefore seeks justice. He has prayed that the cost of the mobile of Rs. 5700/-, Rs. 35,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses be given to him from the OPs.

Complainant has annexed a copy of retail tax invoice dated 01.05.2016 amounting to Rs. 5700/-, service request No. 30101901G60106 dated 13.06.2016.

2. Notice was issued upon OPs on 27.08.2016 for appearance on 23.09.2016, which was received by them as per the track report but none appeared on behalf of OPs. However OP3 appeared and filed its written statement on 16.01.2017 wherein its was submitted that the Wizard Digitex Computer Pvt Ltd/ OP1 is not an authorized dealer/ retailer of an answering OP and it had no idea about the alleged conversation held between the complainant and OP1. Further the complainant approached the authorized service centre on 13.06.2016 for rectification of defect in the mobile and after depositing the mobile, complainant never approached the service centre / OP2 for collecting the rectified mobile which was duly repaired within the stipulated time and as such there is negligence on the part of the complainant himself for not approaching the authorized service centre for recollecting the handset. Further it has been submitted by OP3 that there is no deficiency in service or harassment caused by OP3 to the complainant. Therefore complainant is not entitled to any relief or recovery of any amount from OP3 and as such the OP3 should be deleted from the complaint and the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost qua the OP3.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated the points made in his complaint and stated that his phone was out of order for last three months and as such the OPs were guilty of deficiency of service. It has been further stated that OP3 has no explanation why the subject mobile phone could not be repaired in three months from the service centre further the complainant filed recording of his telephonic conversation with the executive of the company of OP2 in support of his contention made in the complaint.   
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 10.03.2017 where he has stated that the mobile was not working properly within one week of purchase and the same was found mechanically defective on inner part and at last display of the said mobile stopped functioning. The points mentioned in the complaint were reiterated in the evidence.

OP3 did not file its evidence and as such was given another opportunity but failed to file the same. Further on 09.12.2017 it was noticed that OP3 had failed to appear on the last three dates and on 19.12.2017 and as such its right to file evidence was close and it was proceeded against Ex-parte.

5. Complainant filed its written arguments on 31.01.2018 and reiterated the points made in the complaint.
6. We have heard the ex parte written arguments by the complainant and also gone through the various documents filed by the complainant.

We understand that in the absence of rebuttal by the OPs, the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore we direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs. 5,700/- as refund of the said mobile alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on 03.04.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member