DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:515 of 2011] Date of Institution : 09.11.2011 Date of Decision : 16.04.2012 Sh. Amrit Lal son of Sh. Dharmesh Kumar resident of House No.130, Railway Road, Village Dariya, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. TVC Sky Shop Limited, TVC House, Kandwala Centre, Daftary Road, Malad (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400097 (Regd. Office) through its authorised officer. 2. TVC Sky Shop Limited, 401, Jai Krishna Complex, Office Yashraj Films Studio, Fun Republic Lane, Andheri (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400053 (Corporate Office) through its authorised officer. 3. TVC Network Limited, Plot No.A/3, Milton Factory, Mera Gaon, Merga Road East, Distt. Thanne, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401104 through its authorised officer. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the complainant. OPs already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Amrit Lal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed :- i) To replace the mobile set in question or to refund its price i.e.Rs.6,640/- along with interest @18% per annum. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.250/- as courier charges incurred in sending the mobile set back to the OPs. iv) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that OPs had published an advertisement in newspaper wherein they offered to sell a mobile set ICON G4 for Rs.6,490/- against its original market price of Rs.30,000/-. Being allured by the said advertisement, the complainant booked the order for purchasing the said mobile set with the OPs on 29.03.2011. The complainant received the mobile set on 30.3.2011 through V.V.P and he paid a sum of Rs.6,640/- to the delivery person. On perusing the bill, the complainant found that the price of the mobile set was Rs.6,490/- and Rs.150/- was added as delivery charges. The complainant further pleaded that on opening the seal of the mobile set, he found that the TFT screen of the mobile set supplied to him was broken and its touch was also not working properly. On noticing this, the complainant immediately contacted the OPs and lodged his complaint through customer care vide complaint no.667607/167 dated 31.03.2011. He also lodged another complaint vide complaint no.628894/167 on 7.5.2001 i.e. after two months but OPs failed to change the defective mobile set with a new one. When nothing was heard from the side of OPs, the complainant ultimately served a legal notice dated 02.07.2011 upon the OPs. According to the complainant, he again contacted the Customer Care Executive but this time, the complainant was advised to send the defective mobile to the OPs, so that the same could be replaced with a new one. The complainant sent the said mobile set to the OPs on 10.8.2011 through courier. Subsequently, when nothing was done by the OPs, the complainant lodged complaints with the Ops on 15.09.2011 and 07.10.2011 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, which was received by post, it has been admitted that it had sold a mobile set ICON G4 for Rs.6,490/- to the complainant, as per the advertisement. However, at Page No.2 of the written statement, in the opening line of the last paragraph, OP has admitted that whatever the complainant has stated in his complaint is true and correct. However, it is pleaded that if any defect or problem arose in the mobile after one week, it might be the fault of the complainant. It is next asserted that the complainant was requested to return the defective mobile set as the OP No.1 was ready to replace the same with the new one. It has specifically been pleaded by OP No.1 that the defective mobile handset has not been returned by the complainant. According to OP No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part as the product supplied to the complainant was in good condition. Thus, in these circumstances, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. It is pertinent to mentioned here that notice of complaint was issued to the OPs on 17.11.2011 through Registered Post. However, on the next date i.e.30.12.2011, none appeared on behalf of OPs, who filed their written statement through Registered Post. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 25.01.2012 for exparte arguments and evidence on behalf of the complainant. Notices were again sent to the OPs on 25.01.2012 and 01.03.2012 intimating the date fixed for arguments. But despite these notices/intimations, none appeared on behalf of OPs and on 12.04.2012, after hearing the exparte arguments, the case was reserved for orders. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the Delivery Challan-cum-Receipt dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure C-2), it is proved that the complainant received the mobile set in question through courier and paid a sum of Rs.6,640/- at the time of its delivery. The case of the complainant is that on opening the seal, the TFT screen of the said mobile set was found broken and its touch was also not functioning. Annexure C-10 is the copy of E-mail whereby, while responding to the legal notice, OPs regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. It has been admitted by the OPs that they offered to replace the defective mobile handset with a new mobile handset. They asked the complainant to send them back the defective mobile handset. 7. The case of the complainant is that he sent the defective mobile handset to the OPs to be replaced with a new mobile handset but he has not received the new mobile handset so far. Whereas the case of the OPs is that the defective mobile handset has not been received by them and therefore, the replacement could not be dispatched. Annexure C-11 is the Courier Receipt issued by DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited dated 10.08.2011 to the complainant in token of having received the defective mobile handset for being delivered to the OPs. Annexure C-12 is the Consignment Tracker Report issued by the said DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited. From this document, it is apparent that the said consignment was delivered to the OPs on 12.08.2011. The averments made by the complainant to the effect that he had sent the defective mobile handset to the OPs vide Annexure C-11, stand corroborated from his affidavit as well as the documents mentioned above. Whereas the averments made by the OPs to the effect that they did not receive the defective mobile handset is not supported by any affidavit nor there is any documentary evidence to prove that the said consignment was not received by the OPs. In these circumstances, from the evidence on record, it has been proved that the complainant had sent the defective mobile handset to the OPs for replacement. However, the OPs have not replaced the same despite having agreed to it. It amounts to deficiency in service. 8. As the mobile set has not been repaired or replaced so far despite the fact that a period of six months have already lapsed since 10.08.2011, so, OPs are liable to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs, jointly and severally to:- (i) refund a sum of Rs.6,640/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile set in question; (ii) pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation; 10. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6,640/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of delivery i.e.30.03.2011 till actual payment whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.09.11.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th April 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM-II C.C.No.515 of 2011 Present: None. . --- Arguments were heard on 12.04.2012 and the case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. 16.04.2011. [MEMBER] [PRESIDENT] [MEMBER] | 
