Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1091/2013

ANUPAM SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.      1091 /2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 17/12/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                23/10 /2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         24/10 /2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr.Anupam Saini, adult   

s/o- Sh. Mohan Lal Saini  

R/o  1/1922, Gali no. 26 Moti Ram Road,   

Mordern Shahdara, Delhi 110032…………………………..………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-Spice Retail Ltd.

L-1&3, Dua Complex,

Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi 110092

 

2- Optimum Teleservices        

A-160, 1^st Floor, Krishna Bhawan   

Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

3- Spice Mobility Ltd.

Global Knowledge Park

19 A & B, Sec. 125, Noida, UP, 201301……………….……….………….……Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant purchased one Spice Mobile having its model M-425 white having IMEI 911210400478593 from Spice Retail Ltd /OP1 for a sum of Rs 9,700/-on 26/10/2012 vide cash memo no. 191072105 having one year standard warranty from OP3 (Ex.CW1/1).

The said mobile developed auto switch off and on problems in the month of Dec. 2012, so it was given to OP2 on 25/12/2012 (Ex.CW1/2) and again developed problems of hang, speaker voice and FM not working, so was again hand set was given to OP2 for repair (Ex CW1/3) and after getting repaired, the said mobile redeveloped key pad and hanging problems on 03/10/2013, so it was again given to OP2 for repair (Ex CW1/4).

It was stated that despite of repeated visit and reminding OP2, the said mobile was neither repaired nor returned to the complainant and the same was lying with OP2. Thereafter complainant sent legal notice on 29/10/2013 (Ex CW1/5). When no reply was received from OP2, filed this complaint and claimed refund of the cost of the mobile a sum of Rs 9700/- with compensation Rs 50,000/- and litigation charges 15,000/-.

After notices, OP 1 /seller and OP 3/manufacturer submitted written statement and denied all the allegations as wrong and incorrect. OP1 stated that they being the seller of the said product had sold mobile to the complainant who purchased after getting fully satisfied paid the amount. OP1 had never sold any defective product as alleged by the complainant. The standard warranty of one year was given by OP3/manufacturer. So, there was no deficiency in their services or process of selling the product.  

It was submitted in written statement on behalf of OP2 that the said mobile was timely repaired and handed over to the complainant, but there was repeated problems appearing, so complainant was offered new and upgraded version as MI 436 with IMEI no. 91126500714122 (para 7 of OP2 WS), but complainant did not accept the new mobile and insisted for refund of the cost of the mobile. Even on repeated reminding, complainant did not come to collect his repaired mobile lying at service centre/OP2. Hence, there was no deficiency in services of OPs.

 

Complainant submitted his evidence only by way of affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true.

OP1 submitted their evidence on affidavit through their AR Mr Manish Kumar Sharma and stated on oath that OP1 were the seller of the said mobile and had sold new mobile which was purchased by the complainant after full satisfaction and standard warranty was also extended according to the OP3. Hence, present complaint be dismissed.

OP3 also submitted their evidences on affidavit and affirmed on oath that there was no major defect in their product, but due to repeated services in warranty tenure, new upgraded version was given, but it was not accepted by complainant and insisted only for refund. It was also stated that their all contents were true and on record.  

Arguments were heard and file was perused and order was reserved.  

Going to the facts of the case, we have observed that complainant had desired for settling his case through Govt. Mediation Centre, so case was referred to the East Delhi Mediation Centre and could not be settled due to non appearance of parties vide Ref. no. SR/711/PPG/CDRF/2014 dated 05/11/2014. The said matter was relisted in the National Lok Adalat held on 06/12/2014 and again case could not be settled as complainant failed to put his appearance.

Though there is no merit in this case as complainant could not establish deficiency of OP2 and 3, but OP3 had offered new version of mobile to complainant which he did not accept the same. So, in the interest of justice, we direct the complainant to collect the new version of mobile offered by the OP3 within 15 days of receiving of this order through OP1. As there is no deficiency in services OP1 and OP2, no liability can be put on them.

 

There is no order to cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 of The Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20 (1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                              Sukhdev Singh, President