Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/92/2014

Deepak Raj S/o Ram Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Karan

29 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.92 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 10.2.2014.

                                                                                     Date of decision: 29.06.2016.

 

Deepak Raj son of Sh. Ram Gopal, resident of H.No.83, village Chhachhrauli, tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar c/o Radhey Shyam, Farakpur, workshop near Railway Phatak, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar age 39 years.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                                Versus.

 

1.         Spice Retail Limited Authorised service center, Singh Communication, Shop No.5, Paras Ram Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its proprietor/partner.

2.         North India Company Private Limited, village Smpka, tehsil Farukh Nagar, Pataudi Road, Behind Gati Logistics Park, Gurgaon-23503 through its Managing Director.

3.         Spice Mobile Pvt. Ltd. , S Global knowledge Park, 19A & AB, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301 through its Director.

                                                                                                             … Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Ram Karan, Adv. for complainant.

              OP No.1 ex parte vide order dated 21.10.2014.

  OP No.2 given up vide order dated 10.12.2015.

  Sh.Rajan Bhatia, Adv. for Op No.3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that respondents (herein after referred as Ops) be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or to refund the bill amount and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant had ordered to purchase a Spice Combo of Dual Sim Phone with Qwerty Keypad-QT 53+with his and her watch by Austin Polo Club for an amount of Rs.2999/- through tele shopping. On order of the complainant, the OP No.2 sent the aforesaid mobile to the complainant under sub order no.55865517 vide bill no.PAT/112012/193496, dated 19.3.2013 bearing CST/TIN no.6121939695 for an amount of Rs.2999/-.  The OP No.1 is authorized service center of the Spice Retail Limited.  The complainant received the aforesaid mobile phone at his address at Yamuna Nagar as per marketing done in respect of the said mobile phone, the said mobile phone is of best quality.  But, it was very shocking and appalling for the complainant as just only few days of its purchase, the said mobile phone become defective as its SIM show invalid and no network.  The complainant immediately contacted the OP no.2 through telephone and told about the defect, who advised the complainant to contact the authorized service center of the Spice Mobile i.e. OP No.1.  Then the complainant contacted the OP No.1 on 13.11.2013 with the mobile set and narrated about the defect to the OP No.1 who asked the complainant that they will remove the defect and will handover the same to the complainant in prefect condition and issued a receipt to the complainant and told to come after a week.  As per the assurance given by the OP No.1, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 after a week and then OP No.1 averted the complainant by saying that the defect is not yet removed and told the complainant to come after 4-5 days.  The complainant again contacted the OP No.1 but this time also the OP No.1 averted the complainant by making false pretext and ultimately the OP No.1 flatly refused to remove the defect from the mobile set in question by saying that the defect in the mobile set in question is manufacturing defect and could not be removed, which constitute deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     To prove the case the counsel for complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, documents such as Photocopy of Job sheet Annexure C.1, Photocopy of Invoice Annexure C.2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     Upon notice, the OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 21.10.2014 whereas Op No.2 stands given up vide order dated 10.12.2015 on the statement of counsel for complainant being unnecessary party.  The OP No.3 appeared and filed its written statement by replying to each and every paragraph of the complaint that the complainant has to put strict proof of the same and the complaint is wrong and hence denied and only in para no.11 of the written statement alleged that the complaint is matter of record and denied the jurisdiction of this Forum. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the version the counsel for the OP No.3 did not tender any document and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as OP No.3 and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.  It is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile set Spice Combo of Dual Sim with Qwety Keypad-QT 53 with his and her watch for amounting to Rs.2999/- through online on 9.3.2013 from OP No.2 dealer and manufactured by OP No.3 which is evident from copy of invoice/bill Annexure C.2.  The only version of the complainant is that after few days of its purchase the said mobile phone become defective as its SIM SHOW INVALID AND NO NETWORK.  He contacted the OP No.2 on telephone and lateron on his advice visited the service center OP No.1 on 13.11.2013 and handed over his mobile set in question vide job sheet dated 13.11.2013 and after that he visited the OP No.1 for collecting the mobile set in question after 5 days then OP No.1 flatly refused to remove the defect of the mobile set by saying that the mobile set is having manufacturing defect and it can not be removed.  On the other hand all the averments were denied by OP No.3.

7.                     After hearing the parties and going through the documents placed on the file, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the Ops has totally failed to contest the present complaint even the vague reply has been filed on behalf of the OP No.3 just denying all the averments that the contents of complaint are matter of record and the complainant has to put strict proof of the same.  Even OP No.3 has not taken any defence in his written statement nor any affidavit in support of their version has been filed by the OP No.3.

8.                     Although, the complainant has not filed any expert report that mobile in question was having manufacturing defect even then from the perusal of Job Sheet dated 13.11.2013 (Annexure C.1), it is clear that mobile set was having some problem.  Further, from the perusal of job sheet and contents of the complaint, it is clearly evident, that the complainant used mobile set in question for about 8-9 months as the present complaint has been filed on 10.2.2014 whereas the mobile in question purchased on 19.3.2013 and even the first Job Sheet is of dated 13.11.2013, so it can not be presumed that mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect since its purchase.  However, as the present complaint has been filed within a period of one year from its purchase i.e. during the currency of warranty period.  Hence, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get some relief.

9.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops No.1 and 3 to repair the mobile set in question free of costs and further the Ops No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and litigation charges.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 Announced in open court.29.06.2016

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER