BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.290 of 2015

Date of Instt. 03.07.2015

Date of Decision : 10.05.2016

Inderjit Singh aged about 68 years son of Late Sh.Jaswant Singh R/o House No.B-55/3, New Beant Nagar, P.O.PAP Lines, Jalandahr.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Spice Retail Ltd., S.Globel Knowledge Park, 194 & 198, Sec-125, Noida-201301(UP).

2. Spice Customer Care, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata(W.B).

3. Spice Service Centre, Near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Sanjeev Sharma Adv., counsel for the OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased spice mobile from Spice Retail Limited, Noida online for a sum of Rs.2599/-. The complainant submitted that on insertion of SIM in the mobile set, the complainant received message “SIM Registration Failure” and whenever he tried to insert the SIM, the same problem remained. The complainant lodged complaint with the OP through phone and emails. The complainant handed over the mobile set to the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.3 on 14.8.2014 vide SI No.19100511E80106 and received back the mobile phone on 5.9.2014 but problem remained same and complainant again handed over the mobile phone to OP No.3 for repair on 23.9.2014 and it was returned to the complainant on 7.10.2014 but the problem remained the same. The complainant again approached the OP No.3 on 10.1.2015 but OP failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant lodged so many complaints on the customer care/vide emails dated 2.12.2014 but OP No.3 failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant. The OP also failed to replace the mobile set of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to replace the mobile set of the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that allegations made by the complainant are baseless as he never visited the service centre i.e. OP No.3 for rectification of defect in the mobile set in question nor he could produce any service job sheet. The complainant has failed to prove on record that there is irreparable defect in the mobile set of the complainant. OPs denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA/1 alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased spice mobile from Spice Retail Limited, Noida online vide retail invoice dated 26.1.2014 Ex.C5, for a sum of Rs.2599/-. The complainant submitted that on insertion of SIM in the mobile set, the complainant received message “SIM Registration Failure” and whenever tried to insert the SIM, the same problem remained. The complainant lodged complaint with the OPs through phone and emails Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. The complainant handed over the mobile set to the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.3 on 14.8.2014 vide SI No.19100511E80106 and received back the mobile phone on 5.9.2014 but problem remained same and complainant again handed over the mobile phone to OP No.3 for repair on 23.9.2014 and it was returned to the complainant on 7.10.2014 but the problem remained the same. The complainant again approached the OP No.3 on 10.1.2015 but OP failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant lodged so many complaints on the customer care vide emails dated 2.12.2014 but OP No.3 failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant. The OP also failed to replace the mobile set of the complainant. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs as per their affidavit Ex.OPA/1 is that allegations made by the complainant are baseless as he never visited the service centre i.e. OP No.3 for rectification of defect in the mobile set in question nor he could produce any service job sheet. The complainant has failed to prove on record that there is irreparable defect in the mobile set of the complainant. The learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased spice mobile from OP No.1 online vide retail invoice Ex.C5 dated 26.1.2014 for sum of Rs.2599/-. It has been duly proved on record by the complainant through his affidavit Ex.CA that when he inserted the SIM in the mobile set, he received message “SIM Registration Failure”. The complainant approached OP No.3 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.1 on 14.8.2014 and handed over the mobile set to them vide SI No.19100511E80106 and they returned the mobile set to the complainant on 5.9.2014 but problem remained same and complainant again approached OP No.3 on 23.9.2014 and mobile set was returned to the complainant on 7.10.2014 but the problem remained the same. Thereafter, complainant again approached the OP No.3 on 3.2.2015 but this time OP No.3 refused to repair the mobile set of the complainant by stating that warranty period was over. All this fully prove that complainant took the mobile set to the authorized service centre of the OP No.1 i.e. OP No.3 time and again but even this mobile set was not even allowing to insert the SIM and as such the mobile set did not work at all. OP has simply stated that complainant never approached the authorized service centre of OP No.1 i.e. OP No.3, whereas complainant has produced on record emails issued by the OP to the complainant regarding his complaints lodged by the complainant regarding the mobile set in question i.e. emails Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 but the authorized service centre of the OP failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and to make it fully functional. All this proves that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. Therefore, OPs are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant.

9. Resultantly, complaint is allowed with cost and the OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

10.05.2016 Member Member President