Haryana

Ambala

CC/34/2015

Maan Kashyap - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Online retail pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         34 OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         02-02-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         16.11.2015

Maan Kashyap son of Sh. Surinder Kumar aged 23 years, resident of H.No. 1944/13, Moti Nagar, Ambala City.

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                   Versus

1.                 Spice Online Retail Pvt. Ltd. C/O PIBCO Limited, Basement, Punjsons, 2, kalkaji Industrial Area, New Delhi-110019.

 2.                Nanak Telecom, shop No.7, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, Haryana –(133001).

3.                 Spice Online Retail Pvt. Ltd. 60-D, Street No. C-5, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Complainant in person

                             OPs ex-parte.                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone Model Spice stellar pinnacle Pro Mi-535 (BROWN) Dual Sim bearing IMEI No. 911313300642365, IMEI  No. 2, 911313300722365 vide invoice No. 95160 dated 15-5-2014 in a sum of Rs.9,345/- from OP No.1 with a warranty of 1 year. After 6 months, the said mobile phone started giving problem of touch & sensor etc  and thus complainant visited OP No.2 for its repairs. On checking, OP No.2 stated that touch and sensor not working properly and part will be changed by OP No.3 within a maximum of 15-20 days. Thereafter on 29-1-2015 a message received on the mobile of complainant “ Your mobile is OK ” .   So, complainant again visited the Service centre of the OP where they handed over other mobile phone which was changed by OPs service centre having defective mother board. Thereafter the said mobile again sent to OP No.1 for its repair but of no use.  In this way, the mobile in question supplied by the OP was having manufacturing defect  from the beginning to which the Ops failed to replace  with a new one within the warranty period which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Upon notice, OPs failed to appear before the forum despite service  and as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18-3-2015. 
3.           In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant and  gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant  is  that  he purchased  the mobile set in question  on  15-05-2014  for Rs.9,345/- from OP No.1 with a warranty of one year and after 6 months, the mobile  phone started creating  problems of touch, sensor and charging problem etc, which was not rectified by the OPs despite various visits to the service centre of the OP company at Ambala Cantt and even inspite of sending the same to head office of the company which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant  has further relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other   wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.

 

5.                After hearing the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question of Spice Company  was  sold  by OP no.1 to the complainant on 15-05-2014. Further it is also not in dispute that the mobile set was having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective repeatedly during the warranty period as revealed from document Annexure C-2 job sheet dated 29.1.2015 & Annexure C-3 job sheet dated 27-11-2014 wherein the problem of touch, sensor and on off switch problem & others have been specifically mentioned and the handset so  received by the service centre of the company vide above referred jobsheet has not been returned to the complainant. Further the contention of complaint goes unrebutted as OPs did not bother to contest the matter despite their service and as such, we have no option to except to believe the version of complainant.

 

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that mobile set sold to the complainant by the OPs  was having inherent defect from its very beginning and the same could not be rectified by the OPs  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre at Ambala. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

 

                (i)         to return Rs.9,345/- i.e. cost of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of complaint to till its realization.

               (ii)         to  pay  Rs. 3000/- as  compensation  for  harrasment and mental agony etc.

              (iii)          also to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:16.11.2015                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                            ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                              ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                                     MEMBER