Haryana

Karnal

24/2014

Bajinder Kumar S/o Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Mobility,., ASC Sach Telecom Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           Complaint No.24 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt.27.01.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 21.07.2015

 

Bajinder Kumar son of Sh.Ram Singh resident of V.P.O.Gudha tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.

                                                                   ………….Complainant.

 

                                                          Versus

 

1.Spice Mobility, Spice Global Knowledge Park, 19A-19B, Sector 125, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH  - 201301.

 

2. ASC  Sach Telecom Pvt.Ltd., Railway Station Road, Shop No.31, Khalsa School, Market, Opposite Sanjeev Hospital, Railway Road, Karnal.                                        

                                                                   ………..Opposite Parties.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has  been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986, as amended upto date,   on the allegations that he purchased one mobile phone  No. MI-351, IMEI No.911304950096028, vide Bill No.482/09.08.2013.  The mobile phone gave electric shocks after putting the same on charging, the voice/volume was not properly audible and screen was defective. He apprised the   shopkeeper about the problem and on advice of the shopkeeper, he gave the same for repair to service centre at Karnal but after  ten days, the employees of the service centre told that the  said mobile could not be repaired..   Thereafter, he lodged the complaint No.0400017305  at Customer Care of Spice Mobile  and sent e-mail on 10.12.2013, 19.12.2013 and 21.12.2013 complaining about the problem, but no heed was paid to his requests. He had  also complained to Ms. Sapna Sharma, Head Marketing, Spice Mobility and Mr.T.M.Ramkrishan CEO, Spice Mobility on 10.12.2013 through registered post and to Mr.Divya Gupta, National Sales Head, Spice Mobility   through  e-mail but  to no avail. The complainant has claimed the refund of the amount  of cost of the mobile set alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation  for the mental harassment.

 

2.                 Upon notice, the Opposite Party ( in short OP)  no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that  mobile set in dispute is spurious  and was neither sold nor  manufactured by the OP no.1. The retailer is not  authorized retailer of OP No.1 and he sold the fake hand set with tampered IMEI  numbers. On coming to know about the availability of fake/counterfeit/spurious  hand sets of its brand, the OP No.1 filed necessary complaint in this regard and is pursuing the matter. It has further been averred that M/s Sach Telecom private Limited is the only authorized original distributor of OP No.1 for the Haryana State and Sach Telecom  confirmed that they neither supplied the said hand set No. MI 351 ( IMEI No.911304950096028)  and 911304950096036) to Shiv Communication  nor Shiv communication is  authorized  by them to sell Spice  brand  handsets.   The dealer sold this fake/spurious hand set  to the complainant after procuring  from illegal means as well as without payment of necessary taxes.  It has further been submitted that the original hand set was sold by OP No.1 to a customer in Bhiwani (Haryana) on 22.3.2013 and the same was serviced at service centre on  3.5.2013 and on 7.5.2013.  The original hand set was  activated  on Idea Mobile No. 08059963087  on 22.3.2013. Thus, the OP No.1 is not manufacturer of the mobile hand set purchased by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not consumer of Op No.1.   Accordingly, the OP no.1 is not liable for any defect in  the hand set purchased by the complainant.

 

3.                The  complainant in his evidence filed  affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14.

 

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                From the allegations made in the complaint and the contents of the written statement filed by the OP no.1, it emerges that there is  dispute between the parties regarding genuineness of the hand set purchased by the complainant. The complainant has produced copy of the bill Ex.C2 issued by Shiv Communication and Mobile Distributor, Assandh Road, Kohand,  according to which complainant purchased spice mobile  hand set MI 351 ( IMEI No.911304950096028 on 9.08.2013. Copy of the job card Ex.C3 shows that he approached the Spice Service Centre i.e. Sach Telecom private limited on  12.11.2013 with the problem of  ringer pause, touch auto work and  charging problem. Complainant  also  produced documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C14 regarding lodging complaints to OP No.1.

 

6.                Thus, the complainant has purchased mobile set from  Shiv Communication and Mobile distributor ,Assandh Road, Kohand but as per the case of OP No.1 Shiv communication is not its authorized dealer. The OP No.1 alongwith written statement filed copy of the letter sent by Sach Telecom Pvt.Ltd., who is its authorized dealer, according to which they had not supplied the hand set bearing  IEMI No. No.911304950096028  to Shiv Telecom at Kohand and that Shiv Telecommunication is not authorized by them to sell the Spice Brand  Mobiles Phones.  It is  important to point out that the complainant did not implead Shiv communication  as OP even after filing written statement by OP no.1  clarifying  that mobile hand set purchased by the complainant was neither manufactured by Op no.1 nor sold to Shiv communication by its authorized distributor i.e. Sach Telecom private limited. Only Shiv communication could explain as to from which distributor of OP no.1, the said hand set was purchased by him. No doubt, the complainant approached the service centre of OP No.1 for repairs of Mobile in question and also lodged complaints through e-mails and  letters, but these documents also not prove   that the hand set purchased by him from Shiv communication was genuine and manufactured by OP No.1.  The Job card and Tertiary report of mobile bearing  IMEI No. 911304950096028 Model No. MI-351 MSISDN 918059963087  produced by OP No.1 alongwith the  written statement indicate that the said mobile was sold to one Subham  resident of Bhiwani having contact No. 08059963087 on 22.3.2013 and the same was repaired by Sandeep Electronics, authorized Centre on 3.5.2013.

 

7.                          In view of the afore discussed , facts and circumstances and evidence on record, we have  no hesitation in observing that the complainant has not been able to establish that mobile purchased by him from Shiv communication was manufactured by OP no.1 and the same was genuine. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon  OP no.1 as manufacturer and OP No.2 as service provider, in respect of defect in the mobile set purchased by the complainant from Shiv Communication.

 

8.                Therefore, as a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.07.2015                                                                             

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present         Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

 

                   Arguments  partly heard. For reaming arguments, the case is adjourned to 21.07.2015.

 

Announced
dated:14.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Satpal Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, thepresent complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:21.07.2015                                                                            

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.