Delhi

East Delhi

CC/682/2013

ARVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURI TELECOM - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  682/13

 

Shri Arvinder Singh

S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Sinjgh

R/o D-21, Gali No. 3

South Anarkali, Delhi – 110 051                             ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Ms. Suri Telecom

454/55, West Guru Angad Nagar

Gurdwara Road, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd.

6^th Floor, Star CJ Plaza

Near Apsara Theatre

Dr. D.B. Marg, Grant Road

Mumbai – 400007

 

3. M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.

Also Known

Jaina Marketing & Associates

(In joint venture with M/s. United Telelinks Pvt. Ltd.)

245, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash

new Delhi – 110 065                                                         ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 19.08.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 22.05.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.05.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Arvinder Singh against     M/s. Suri Telecom (OP-1), M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant ordered one Karbonn Mobile – Model No. A2, on the number 1860-500-1860 at Star CJ Alive on 03.02.2013, through his mobile.  The said mobile was delivered to the complainant through courier on 06.02.2013 as order no. 20130203043919 vide invoice no. 201302040613 dated 05.02.2013 through Gati Courier vide Docket no. 205161952.  The complainant made payment of Rs. 5,555/- towards the sale price with VAT/CST without opening the packet of the mobile as the courier boy could not permit him to open the packet. 

          The complainant opened the packet and found that the mobile was not working.  He made a call to OP-2 on 06.02.2013, but no one attended the call.  He again made a call on 07.02.2013 and requested for replacement/change of mobile phone.  OP advised the complainant for contacting OP-3 vide its customer toll free helpline no. 1800-102-4660.  The complainant made a call to OP-3, which was attended by one executive of OP-3 who told the complainant “you will receive a call from our boss and he will only tell you, what can be done for you”.  Thereafter, the complainant received a call on 12.02.2013 from the executive of OP-3 who informed that his mobile phone cannot be changed and advised him to contact at service centre of Karbonn Mobiles i.e. OP-1. 

          Complainant visited at OP-1 on 13.02.2013, who advised him that it is the policy of OP-3 that the phone will be replaced with new one if complaint is made within 3 days of delivery of the mobile.  Complainant visited to OP-3 who flatly refused for change/replacement of the phone.  He, again visited to OP-1 for repair of the mobile, which was returned by OP-1 after one month, but after 10 days, touch of the mobile became out of order.  The phone was again handed over to OP-1 for repair in the month of March and was again returned in April 2013.  Again, the touch of mobile became out of order after 4 days of using the mobile.  The complainant handed over the mobile to OP-1 in April for repair which was not returned till date.  The job sheet was issued to the complainant on 08.07.2013 after repeated requests as the printer of  OP-1 was out of order.  Hence, the complainant prayed for direction to OP to replace the mobile with new one, Rs. 2,60,000/- compensation on account of mental and physical harassment, loss of business earnings and misguiding of general public and Rs. 21,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.       Notice of the complaint was given to both parties.  They were served, but OP-1 did not put the appearance.  Thus, OP-1 proceeded ex-parte.

            In the WS filed on behalf of M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2 & 3), they have taken various pleas stating that the respondent provides warranty under the normal use and service i.e. (a) one year for mobile phone devices and (b) 6 months for batteries, charger and accessories.  The complainant purchased handset on 05.02.2013 and it became faulty on 08.07.2013 meaning thereby that the handset was working and used by the complainant five months.  Thus, there was no manufacturing defect in the said handset.  They have denied that the complainant came to service centre for repairing on 08.07.2013 and they took long time for repair.  As per their record, they repaired the mobile and delivered the same to the complainant.  They have not received any legal notice.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2 & 3), wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  

          In defence, M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2&3) have examined Shri Kapil Kumar, AR of Jaina Marketing and Associates, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the written arguments filed on behalf of M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2&3).  Their main argument has been that the complainant used the handset for 5 months and there was no manufacturing defect. 

          On the other hand, counsel for the complainant have argued that the handset was defective.  To ascertain as to whether the handset was defective or not, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant as well as of Shri Kapil Kumar, AR of M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2&3). 

          It is the case of the complainant that he made visits to the service centre of OP from time to time, but his handset was not serviced and he was given the jobsheet of dated 08.07.2013.  Though, no evidence has been put on record by M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2&3) as to whether the complainant made any visit to their service centre, but even if the service report of 08.07.l2013 is taken as the evidence, it shows that touch panel was faulty and it falls within the warranty period of one year for mobile phone devices. 

          The fact that the touch screen of the mobile was faulty and it came within the warranty period, certainly, Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) was under obligation to provide the service.  By not providing the service as per the warranty period, there has been deficiency on their part.  When there has been deficiency on their part, certainly, the complainant was entitled for the relief he has claimed.  By not providing the service within the warranty period, the complainant has also suffered mental pain and agony for which he has to be compensated. 

          In view of the above, it is ordered that M/s. Star CJ Network India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Jaina Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2&3) shall pay the cost of mobile of Rs. 5,500/- with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- which includes the cost of litigation.  This order be complied within a period of 45 days.  If not complied, then total amount of Rs. 15,500/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

 

           

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                      President