BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 412 of 2015

Date of Institution: 26.06.2015

Date of Decision: 18.01.2016  

Rakesh Sharma (aged 48 years) son of Sh.Vishwa Nath, resident of House No. 8, Gali No.1, Jawahar Nagar, Batala Road, Near Briday School, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

1. Spice Retail Limited, Mobile Handset Division, 5 Global Knowledge Park 19A & 19B, Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India, through its authorized signatory.
2. Spice Retail Limited, Authorized Service Centre, Cell Point, Shop No.201, 2^nd Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar through its authorized signatory.
3. North India Top Company Private Limited, TCI Supply Chain Solution C/O Acorn Warehouses and Logistics Park, 65, Vill Kaprwas & Malpura, Rewari Haryana, through its authorized signatory.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: None for the complainant.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Ajay Mehta, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Exparte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Rakesh Sharma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one mobile set make Spice Communicator N500 bearing IME12/MEID2 No.911377450520218 vide Invoice dated 5.8.2014 worth Rs.3,999/- from Opposite Party No.3. Complainant alleges that very soon from the date of purchase, there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set  in question to the effect that ‘MICE Receiver Disturb and Display Blinking’. The complainant immediately rushed to Opposite Party No.2, authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 and handed over the mobile set  in question vide job sheet dated 15.9.2014, but the said defect was not properly  cured. The complainant again handed over the mobile set  to Opposite Party No.2 vide complaint No. 20280 dated 28.2.2015 and again the defect in the mobile set  of the complainant was not properly cured and lastly the complainant handed over the mobile set  with Opposite Party No.2 on 4.3.2015 vide job sheet dated 4.3.2015, but the Opposite Party No.2 failed to cure the defect in the mobile set  in question.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the  mobile set  in question with new one. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that each mobile set carries limited warranty of one year against any manufacturing defects and replacement of mobile set can only be possible when there is an irreparable manufacturing defect in mobile set in question. The complainant last time visited Opposite Party No.2- authorized service centre on 4.3.2015 with MICE RECEIVER DISTURB AND DISPLAY BLINKING problems and job sheet was issued to the complainant subject to the condition that the mobile set  is being received as per ‘Limited Warranty Terms and Condition’ and Spice may refuse to undertake repair of  warranty void handset which include  liquid logged, unauthorized tempering, damage due to act of God like rain, storm, fire and lightning, etc. The  mobile set  was checked thoroughly and it was found that SMD tempered and series missing. Accordingly, the mobile set was declared as ‘Warranty Void’ under the terms of Limited Warranty conditions and the complainant was intimated accordingly to deposit the requisite charges vide an automated SMS on his registered mobile number. The complainant neither paid the charges nor collected his defected ‘warranty void’ mobile set  from the authorized service centre.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite valid  service, so Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.8.2015 of this Forum. 
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.B.M.Aggarwal Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents ExOP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased mobile set make Spice Communicator N500 vide Invoice dated 5.8.2014 (Ex.C2) worth Rs.3,999/- from Opposite Party No.3 with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that said mobile set  became defective and there was manufacturing defect in the mobile set  in question to the effect that ‘MICE Receiver Disturb and Display Blinking’. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.2-authorized service centre and handed over the mobile set  in question vide job sheet dated 15.9.2014 to Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C4. Opposite Party No.2 returned the mobile set  in question after some repair. But said defect in the mobile set  did not properly cure and again same defect occurred in the mobile set . The complainant handed over the mobile set  to Opposite Party No.2 vide complaint No. 20280 dated 28.2.2015 and again the defect was not properly cured and lastly the complainant handed over the mobile set  with Opposite Party No.2 on 4.3.2015 vide job sheet dated 4.3.2015 Ex.C3 and this time the Opposite Party No.2 could not repair the mobile set  in question nor returned the same to the complainant. The mobile set in question is lying with Opposite Party No.2 since 4.3.2015. Complainant submitted that all this shows that mobile set  in question was beyond repair and the act of the Opposite Parties  amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.     
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the mobile set  of the complainant was received by Opposite Party No.2-authorized service centre and undertook repair and lastly the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2- authorized service centre on 4.3.2015 with MICE RECEIVER DISTURB AND DISPLAY BLINKING problems as per job sheet dated 4.3.2015 Ex.C3. Mobile set in question was checked thoroughly and it was found that SMD tempered and series missing. Mobile set was not covered under the warranty  as the mobile set was under limited warranty terms  and conditions. The complainant was intimated to deposit the requisite charges vide an automated SMS on his registered mobile number, but the complainant neither paid the charges nor collected his defected mobile set  from the authorized service centre.   Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased mobile set  make Spice Communicator from Opposite Party No.3 vide Invoice dated 5.8.2014 Ex.C2 for a sum of  Rs.3999/-. Said mobile set  became defective and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-authorized service centre and handed over the mobile set  in question to Opposite Party No.2 with problem ‘MICE Receiver Disturb and Display Blinking’. Opposite Party No.2 repaired the mobile set and returned the same to complainant, but the mobile set  of the complainant did not function properly and the same defect re-occurred in the mobile set  in question. Again the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 28.2.2015 vide complaint No. 20280 and again the defect was not properly cured and lastly the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 4.3.2015 with same problem in the mobile set vide  job sheet dated 4.3.2015 Ex.C3 and this time the Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired the mobile set  in question nor returned the same to the complainant. All this proves that the mobile set  of the complainant is beyond repair. Opposite Party No.1 in their written version has submitted that mobile set  was checked and it was found SMD tempered and series missing, so it was not covered under the warranty. But no record of the mobile set  in this regard has been produced by Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 with whom the mobile set  is lying and was checked by  Opposite Party No.2, did not turn up to explain the actual position of the mobile set  of the complainant. So, it stands fully prove on record  that mobile set  of the complainant is beyond repair and as such, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are liable to replace the same with new one or to refund the price of the mobile set  to the complainant.
10. Resultantly, we allow the complaint of the complainant with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and  2 are directed to replace the mobile set  of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.3,999/-  to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  shall be liable to refund the price of the mobile set  of the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2   are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 18.01.2016.                                                      (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                 President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member