Delhi

North East

CC/503/2014

Mohd. Imran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Spice Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 503/14

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. N.A. Alvi

                        Hon’ble Member Ms. Manju Bala Sharma

 

In the matter of:

 

Mohd. Imran

House No.D-127,

Gali No.3,

Noor Illahi Colony,

Maujpur Ghonda Extension,

Near Yamuna Vihar,

Delhi-110053                                                                                     Complainant                                       

           

Versus

 

1.        Spice Retail Ltd.

            Shop No.1/9539,

            Main Hanuman Road,

            Pratap Pura, Shahdara,

            New Delhi

 

2.        Sai Communication

            U-196, First Floor,

            Main Vikas Marg,

            New Delhi-110092

 

3.        Spice Retail Ltd.

            A-56, Sector-64,

            Noida-201301

            U.P.                                                                                    Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18-12-2014

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      :  31-12-2015

 

 

 

Order

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

Hon’ble Member Ms. Manju Lata Sharma:-

 

As per complaint the complainant, on 13.01.2014, purchased a mobile of XOLO, Model Q1000S from OP1 but the said mobile got defective within its warranty period and on 15.11.2014, the complainant submitted its mobile to OP2 for its rectification as the mobile was heating up and battery backup problem was there.  OP2 told that the mobile will be returned within 8 to 10 days, after its rectification.   But even after the expiry of 15 days the OP did not return the mobile phone.   On inquiry OP informed that phone touch was cracked.  OP2 collected the mobile on 01.12.2014 again for repairs to rectify and returned after a week.  On contact after a week OP2 told that it will take 20 to 25 days more to repair the mobile and it was only after so many complaints to OP3 that the complainant was provided the mobile.    But again mobile became defective and OP has told that 20 to 25 days more will take them to repair it.    The complainant prayed for return of the invoice amount of Rs.16,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- for loss.

OPs were served but nobody appeared on their behalf and filed any reply.  Hence OPs were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.03.2015. 

Affidavit of evidence filed by the complainant.

Heard and perused the record.

Complainant filed three documents in support of its case i.e. retail invoice issued by OP, two job sheets dated 15.11.2014 and 01.12.2014 issued by OP2.   The perusal of these documents show that the complainant purchased the mobile, Model No.Q10002 of OP3 make from OP1 on 13.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.16,000/-.  It also show that mobile was submitted for repairs/rectification to OP2 on 15.11.2014 with problem of heating up in mobile and back up in the battery.  But it could not be rectified and again was submitted with same problem as well as for charging problem on 01.12.2014.  Thereafter mobile is still not repaired.  Thus, the complainant has established his case while OP, by non appearing even after being served, not controverted the case of the complainant.  Hence the same is deemed to proved.

However as first defect in the mobile arose only on 15.11.2014 about 10 months of the purchase, full refund can’t be directed as complainant has used the mobile without any defect for 10 months. 

In these circumstances, holding OPs guilty for deficiency in service, we direct them to return to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- only.  We also award amount of Rs.3,000/- against harassment and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.

This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.  

File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 31.12.2015 

           

                         

             ( N.K. Sharma )            ( Nishat Ahmad Alvi )           ( Manju Bala Sharma )

                  President                          Member                                      Member