Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/661

MAHINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                      Date of institution                      :    21.9.15

 

Complainant Case No-661/2015                                                               Date of order                              :   19.7.16

 

In the matter of

Mahinder   Kumar Jain,

C-4A/67A, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-58.                                                                                                                                                   COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Spice Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.

C/o PIBCO  Ltd.

Basement Punjsons-2,

Kalkaji Industrial Area,

New Delhi-19.                                                                                                                                                                  

 

Also at Spice Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd. Add: 60D, Seat No.C-5, Sainik Farms,

New Delhi-62.                                                                                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

Spice Retail Ltd.,

S Global Knowledge Park,

19A & 19B,Sector 125,

Noida-201301.                                                                                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

N.D. Traders,

Authorised Service Center,

Spice Retail Ltd.,

D-11 Jyotishikhar Building,

Janak Puri,

District Center, New Delhi-58.                                                                                                                   OPPOSITE PARTY-3

 

O R D E R

R.S. BAGRI (PRESIDENT)

                Brief facts as stated are that complainant purchased one mobile handset  Make Spice Stellar MI362 through Ebay on line vide invoice No.DLBC30544  dated 1.1.2015 for sale consideration of Rs.2816/-.  The handset was sold with  features :-1. 2GB ROM 2.  Duel sim,and 3.  Expandable memory upto 32GBetc . But  after few days the mobile handset developed some fault.  The complainant on 1.6.2015 gave the mobile handset to Opposite Party No.3 .  They reinstalled software.  But the preloaded applications disappeared.  On 2.6.2015 Opposite Party No.2 by e-mail informed the complainant to deposit the mobile handset with Opposite Party No.3.   Hence the complainant on 5.6.2015 deposited the handset vide job sheet No.30101456F60158 with OP3. Thereafter Opposite Party No.2 on 11.7.2015 informed the complainant to take delivery of the mobile handset.  But on 12.6.15 complainant again informed the Opposite Party No.2 that the mobile handset is still having certain faults.  He again on24.6.15deposited the same  with opposite party 3. The  Opposite Party No.3 told the complainant that memory of the mobile handset

-2-

is only 739MB and not 2GB.     The complainant on 25.8.15  again deposited the mobile handset with Opposite Party vide job sheet No.30101456F800922.He on 25.8.15 sent legal notice  to Opposite Parties through e-mail   and asked  them to return cost of the mobile handset. There upon Opposite Party informed the complainant to collect the mobile .    But when the complainant  from the Opposite Party enquired about status of the mobile, the opposite party failed to give satisfactory reply .   However, the Opposite Parties through e-mail confirmed that the features of the mobile handset are:- memory of 739MB and not 2GB.  Whereas at the  time of purchase the opposite Parties nowhere mentioned specific  features about the memory of the handset.  Hence  the opposite parties have failed to return the mobile handset with features mentioned on the brochure and cartoon.  The  Opposite Parties sold defective mobile handset to the complaiant.   Hence, the present complaint for directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.2816/-cost of the mobile handset  alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and litigation expenses of  Rs.2500/-. 

 

                Notice of the complaint was given to Opposite Parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.  Therefore, opposite parties were proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.2.16. 

 

                When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence, he filed affidavit dated 2.5.16.  He relied upon the invoice dated 1.1.15, copy of electronic catalogue from website of e-bay, copy of cartoon, copy of warranty card, job sheet dated 25.8.15, copy of legal notice dated 25.8.15, copy of e-mails dated 16.8.15 and 17.9.15 . He   once again narrated the facts of complaint in the affidavit and deposed that  defective mobile handset without  the features mentioned   on the brochure and the cartoon was sold by the Opposite parties.   The mobile handset was deposited with the Opposite parties for repairs within warranty but till date neither  the mobile is repaired nor returned. 

 

                From perusal of the affidavit and documents relied upon by the complainant it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset  make Spice Stellar MI362 online  from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice No.DLBC30544  dated 1.1.2015 for sale consideration of Rs.2816.  But after few months the mobile handset developed some fault and the complainant deposited the mobile handset for repairs with Opposite Party 3 within warranty.  The complainant refused to take delivery of the mobile  handset as  it was not repaired to his satisfaction.

 

 

               

     -3-

We have heard the complainant in person  and have gone through  material on record carefully and thoroughly.  

    The version of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged.   Therefore  there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.   The complainant from the affidavit, notice , emails, brochure/catalogue,warranty card  and additional information from the website of Snapdeal  has been able to show that one mobile handset of make Spice Stellar Mi-362 with IMEI No.911409050440404 was purchased  by him online from  opposite party 1 vide invoice dated 1.1.2015 for sale consideration of Rs.2816/-.  The mobile handset developed some fault and was given to OP-3 for repairs vide job-sheet No.30101456F80922 on 25.8.15. within warranty.The complainant several times inquired about  status of his mobile handset but no  satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties.  The Opposite Party-3 till today neither repaired nor returned the mobile handset.  The complainant is  deprived of his right to use the mobile handset.  He has also suffered loss of mobile handset.     Therefore, there is negligence and deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties. Opposite parties 1,2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for negligence and deficiency in service.

  In the light of above discussion and observations , the complaint succeeds and is hereby allowed. Therefore, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.2816/- cost of mobile handset with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from filing the complaint till actual realization of the amount and Rs.1000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The Opposite parties 1,2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

 

Order pronounced on   : 19.07.2016

 

 

• Compliance of the order be made within the 30 days after receipt of the order.

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT