Haryana

Panchkula

CC/29/2016

MUKESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE RETAIL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	29 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	05.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	16.08.2016

Sh.Mukesh Sharma, R/o House No.1312, G.F., Sector-19, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Spice Retail Ltd., S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector-125, Noida-201301, Uttar Pardesh.
2. The North India Top Company (P) Ltd., TCI Supply Chain Solutions, C/o Acorn Warehouses & Logistics Park, 68 VIII-Kapriwas & Malpura, District Rewari, Haryana.
3. The Smart Services, SCO 1092, 1^st Floor, Cabin No.17, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh-160017.

 

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

                             Mr.Pankaj Mehta, Adv., for the OP No.1.

              OPs No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.             

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal,  President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that he purchased a mobile handset of brand Spice Model Mi-517 bearing IMEI Nos.911412100379366 and 911412100379374 through online i.e. Homeshop18 for a sum of Rs.5249/- vide invoice No.NITCDRH/DRH/04/2015/4580161 (Annexure C-1) dated 18.04.2015 with a warranty of one year and the invoice was issued by the Op No.2. After six months of its purchase, the mobile handset started giving problem in touch as the touch was not responding when it was touched. The complainant approached the Op No.3 on 07.12.2015 to rectify the defect who issued a service/repair request certificate bearing No.27101908FC0038 (Annexure C-2) dated 07.12.2015 and told that they would inform him when the defect would be rectified. After about one week, the Op No.3 returned the mobile handset with remarks that its software had been updated and assured its smooth functioning but after two days, the mobile handset started giving the same problem. The complainant again approached the OP No.3 on 17.12.2015 for rectification of defect from the mobile handset who issued service/repair request certificate bearing No.27101908FC0101 (Annexure C-2) dated 17.12.2015 and told the complainant that they would forward the mobile to the company i.e. OP No.1for its repair and they would inform the complainant when the defect of the mobile would be rectified. After ten days, the OP No.3 returned the mobile handset to the complainant with remarks that the defect had been rectified by the company i.e OP No.1 and assured for its smooth functioning but after two/three days, the mobile handset started giving the same problem again and that time, the camera of the mobile handset also started giving problem. The complainant approached the Op No.3 on 30.12.2015 who issued service/repair request certificate bearing No.27101908FC0170 dated 30.12.2015 and that time, the Op No.3 gave the abovesaid version. Thereafter, the complainant informed the company i.e. OP No.1 about the defect of the mobile through customer care and the representative of the Op No.1 assured him that the mobile handset would not give problem after its repair that time. After one week, the complainant visited the Op No.3 to know the status of his mobile and the OP No.3 informed him that the mobile handset is yet to receive from the company i.e. OP No.1. After more one week, the complainant again visited the Op No.3 to know the status of his mobile and the Op No.3 again informed him that the mobile is yet to receive from the company i.e. OP No.1. The complainant again visited the Op No.3 two/three time who gave the same version. Thereafter, the Op  No.3 informed the complainant that the company has decided to provide him another mobile handset of brand Spice bearing model M5Q+ as the mobile handset of the complainant could not be repaired and new handset would be handed over to him on 20.01.2016. The complainant checked the features of offered mobile on net and found some basic features/technical specifications were found less in the mobile handset. The complainant sent a mail to Op No.1 that on 22.01.2016 to provide the mobile handset of same technical specifications as was present in his mobile handset i.e. Mi-517 (Annexure C-3). After two or three days, the representative of the Op No.1 contacted the complainant telephonically and trying to pressurize him to take the mobile handset i.e. M5Q+ without any objection and to stop sending emails as that was the final decision of the company i.e. OP No.1. The Op No.1 did not provide any box, invoice and accessories (charger, earphone, date cable etc.) with the new mobile handset. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Op No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the Op No.1 has possessed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business which they carry out. It is submitted that the mobile handset carried warranty of one year against any manufacturing defect and in case of any damage, the limited warranty of the handset ceased to exit. It is submitted that whenever the complainant visited the service center, he was given due and proper services and the handset in a fully working condition was handed over to him within a stipulated time period. It is submitted that the handset of the complainant was replaced with the latest available XLIFE-M5Q+ on 20.01.2016 as the model No.Mi-517 was not available. It is submitted that configuration of each model launched by the Op No.1 from time to time and accordingly comparing with the most of the features of the Mi-517, the replaced model was offered to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was very much aware about the configurations and he accepted the said model at his own wishes. It is submitted that all the accessories were already available with the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the Ops No.2 and 3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the OPs No.2 and 3. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2016.
4. The complainant tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Op No.1 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of a mobile handset of Spice model Mi-517 bearing IMEI Nos.911412100379366 and 911412100379374 through online for a sum of Rs.5249/- vide Invoice No. NITCDRH/DRH/04/2015/ 4580161 (Annexure C-1) dated 18.04.2015 is admitted.  The handset was received by the complainant at Panchkula.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that the touch panel of the mobile handset was not working. The complainant approached the Op No.1 on 07.12.2015 who repaired the mobile vide Annexure C-2 but after two/three days, the mobile handset started giving problem again. Thereafter, on 17.12.2015 the complainant deposited the mobile handset with the Op No.3 for repair. The Op No.3 sent the mobile to company i.e. Op No.1 for repair and after its repair, the mobile handset was returned to the complainant but again the mobile handset started giving problem. On 30.12.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.3 who sent the handset to Company i.e. Op No.1 but the problem from the handset was not removed and the company gave the complainant a new mobile handset model M5Q+ but the some features were less than the aforesaid mobile of the complainant i.e. Mi-517 as mentioned in Annexure C-3 because earlier mobile had 2 MP front camera, 3000 Mah battery, both sims 3g enabled, 1.3 Gh quad core processer but the provided mobile by the Ops to the complainant was having specifications such as 1.3 MP front camera, 2000 Mah battery, single sim 3g enabled 1.2 Gh quad core processor. Moreover, the replacement of the handset with new another model shows that hand set had inherent defect, which could not be rectified despite many services which proves the poor quality of product as well as poor services.
8. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper services and non-rectification of problems in the hand set clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The replacement of hand set with another model also proves deficiency in service on their part.
9. In view of the fore-goings, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves acceptance and the same is hereby allowed accordingly. The Ops are directed as under:
   1.      To pay the cost of mobile handset purchased by the complainant i.e. an amount of Rs.5249/- and the complainant is directed to return the replaced mobile handset to the Ops with its accessories. 
   2.      To pay Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation.

 

10. Order be complied with jointly and severally by the OPs within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

16.08.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER           MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT