COMPLAINT FILED:12.09.2011.
DISPOSED ON:09.01.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
9th DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT :-
SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1692/2011
Complainant | S.Anil Kumar S/o H.S.Subhas Chandra, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.11, 5th Cross, Hanumagiri Nagar, Chikkalasandra, Banalore-560 070. Adv:Mamatha N.K. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. SPICE MOBILITY LIMITED, Having its office at D-1, Sector-3, Noida-201301, Represented by its Authorized Signatory. Placed Ex-parte. 2. SPICE HOTSPOT Having its office at No.44, Shop No.9:10, Chamundeishwar Complex, 1st Floor, 100 Feet Road, BSK 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 085, Represented by its Authorized Signatory. (Adv:Sri.R.R.G.,)
3.MOBLILE SEVA Having its office at No.B-125, 6th Main Road, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011, Represented by its Authorized Signatory. Placed Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
Sri.B.S.REDDY,PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 seeking direction against Ops to refund an amount of Rs.3,864/- with interest at 21% p.a, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the time and money spent for follow-ups with OP2 and 3 by making personal visits and through phone calls, to pay further sum of Rs.5,000/- compensation towards the hardship and mental agony cause and Rs.3,000/- towards expenses incurred for issuing the legal notice and instituting the proceedings on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
2.In spite of service of notice, OPs 1 and 3 failed to appear, hence placed ex-parte. OP2 though appeared but the counsel who had undertaken to file vakalath had not filed the vakalath.
3.In order to substantiate complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence.
4. Heard from complainant’s side.
5.We have gone through the complaint averments, the affidavit evidence of the complainant and documents produced. On the basis of these materials it becomes clear that OP1 is in the business of selling the mobile phone handsets and Op2 is one of the Sales outlet of OP1 and Op3 is the Authorized Service Centre of OP1. The complainant purchased a handset Spice G6550, of OP1 at OP2 on 03.05.2011 by paying a sum of Rs.3,864/-. The warranty card and the bill are produced, marked as document No.1 and 2. On the very next day of purchase of the handset, the complainant noticed few problems like keypad was not working properly, no battery backup, phone was hanging very offenly and incoming calls were not connecting properly. On 04.05.2011 the complainant approached OP2 and explained the problems of the handset and sought for replacement of the same, OP2 after due verification collected the handset and sought one day time. The complainant met OP2 on the next day for the handset, OP2 informed that handset has been sent to OP3 and once it is rectified they will call back the complainant to collect the handset but they never called back the complainant. Whenever, the complainant called Ops, they hardly receive the calls, if received they used to give vague answers. The complainant requested OP2 that he is an Advocate by profession, hence phone is must for him for contacts, hence sought for the replacement of the handset immediately, the OP2 assured to do the needful on priority. OP2 further sought two more days’ time to replace the handset, thereafter informed that they are processing the request and again sought two more days. When the complainant pressurized, OP2 informed that they have not yet received the handset and directed the complainant to approach OP3. The complainant visited the office of OP3, wherein he was informed that the handset was sent to their head office for rectification and it will take one week time to get back the handset, with no other option complainant waited for one week and approached again, the complainant got the same reply and postponed to next week, at last the handset was handed over to complainant, since the battery was not charged, complainant after charging the battery verified whether all problems are sorted out or not, to his shock and surprise except rectification of keypad, all other problems like no battery backup, phone was hanging very offenly and incoming calls were not connecting were not rectified at all. The complainant again approached OP2 and demonstrated the problems of the handset and sought for replacement of the same, they referred the complainant to OP3, complainant went to OP3, and sought for the remedy, OP3 collected the handset and informed to contact them next day, when complainant called OP3 next day, OP3 informed that the handset has been sent again to their head office to replacement and sought one week time, the complainant patiently waited for one week and approached after a week, OP3 informed to keep in touch with them to know the status hence complainant was following it up every day ultimately almost after one month, complainant received the same handset, when enquired about the new handset, OP3 said only if the defects are not rectifiable then new handset will be provided, further then and there itself, the complainant requested to demonstrate whether the problems all like no battery backup, phone was hanging very offenly and incoming calls were not connecting, are attended and rectified or not but none of the problems are rectified all issues still continued, hence handset was returned back to OP3 and demanded for refund of Rs.3,864/- paid towards purchasing of the handset. A copy of Service Work Order Form is produced herewith and marked as Document No.3. The complainant has been put to great hardship, due to defective handset, he was not able to contact his clients and he was unable to dedicate his full time towards his day-to-day works due to the mental agony caused by the ill treatment given by 2nd and 3rd Ops, his valuable time and money was spent due to follow-up made by making personal visits and through phone calls which amounts in deficiency of services provided by Ops. The legal notice dt.03.08.2011 was issued to refund the amount and to pay compensation of rs.5,000/-, in spite of service of notice, Ops have neither complied the demand nor replied for the notice, document No.4 is the copy of the legal notice, document No.5 is the Postal Acknowledgement of the service for having received the notice.
6. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the complainant and the documents produced. The complainant has been made to run from pillar to post for getting the handset purchased rectified. The defects not at all rectified. OP3 has failed to attend the required repairs. Within warranty period the handset was not working and the same was not attended properly by attending the repairs by Ops. The act of Ops in not attending the repairs properly and selling the defective handset is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Even in spite of receipt of the legal notice, Ops have not complied the demand. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount and for compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.3,864/- the cost of the handset and OP1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 9th day of JANUARY 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
