Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1018/2014

VASHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA INDICOM - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.1018/14

Shri VASU DEV SHARMA

S/O LATE Dr. KESHAV DEV SHARMA

R/O M-147, SECTOR-12

PRATAP VIHAR

1309485749576.  

Vs

 

1. TATA INDICOM STORE

THROUGH

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MANAGER

SHOP NO. 1, DA-4, VIKAS MARG

DELHI 92

2. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.

THROUGH

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MANAGER

2A OLD ISHWAR NAGAR

NEW DELHI-65                                                            ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 11.11.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 26.11.2014

Judgment Passed on: 10.12.2018

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by Shri Vasu Dev Sharma, against Tata Indicom store OP-1 and Tata Teleservices Ltd., OP-2, alleging deficiency in services.
2. The facts of the present complaint are that on 06.04.2014, the complainant purchased one cordless FEP (INDICOM) handset from OP-1 by paying Rs. 1,949/- for which the invoice bearing no. 1204-15/4100-1147-00013 was issued. It has been stated that there were minor problem in the functioning of the handset right from the day one. On 20.04.2014, a complaint was registered vide complaint no. 429111075 and on 22.08.2014 (which seems to be a typographical errors) executive of OP, namely Shri Deepak Kumar, visited and concluded that the handset could not be rectified as the mike was faulty. It has been further stated that the complainant was offered a simple walky talky in exchange which is stated to be not more than Rs.1,000/-, thus, the complainant insisted for replacement with the same model, which was denied as the cordless was out of stock. On 25.08.2014, the complainant personally visited the office of OP-2 and got his complaint registered vide complaint no. 42986-0657, where he was again informed that if the cordless was not available in stock, the representative of OP-2 would issue DOA (Dead on Arrival) letter and the company shall provide the cordless handset on the basis of that letter. The representative of OP-2 on his visit refused to provide the cordless phone as well as issuance of DOA (Dead on Arrival). It has been stated by the complainant that the wife of complainant being an advocate by profession remains out of home and finds difficult to contact her young children at home.

Legal notice dated 09.09.2014 was sent to the OPs which was replied by OPs vide E-mails dated 26.09.2014, where the complainant was given an option to purchase the handset of his choice from any Tata Indicome outlet and adjust 50% cost in the upcoming device. Feeling aggrieved by negligent and careless attitude of OPs the complainant has approached this forum seeking exchange of the defective handset; Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Complainant has annexed invoice dated 06.04.2014 as Annexure A, Job card dated 22.08.2014 as Annexure 3, legal notice dated 09.09.2014 as Annexure C, reply of legal notice by OP-2 of dated 26.09.2014 as Annexure E with the complaint.

3. Written Statement was filed by OPs upon service of the summon in the present complaint wherein they have stated that the complaint of the complainant had been regularly addressed by the OPs within the defined time lines and as good will gesture, the complainant had been offered a reduction/ adjustment from its future bills, of an amount equivalent to 50% of the cost of the new device being purchased by the complainant from any of the OPs outlets. It was further submitted that the OP had agreed to replace the handset of the complainant with refurbished handset in spite of the fact that the handset of the complainant was under warranty for a period of three months only. It was further submitted that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the customer agreement form. It was stated that no deficiency in services could be attributed to the OPs as it was the complainant who had refused to accept the offer of OPs. Rest of the contents of the complaint has been denied.

Special Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Rituraj, reply to the legal notice of dated 26.09.2014, Customers Application Form has been annexed with the reply. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has got himself examined and has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint and has got exhibited the copy of the invoice as Ex.CW1/A, faulty compilation report as Ex.CW1/B, legal notice of dated 09.09.2014 as Ex. CW1/C and Ex. CW1/D respectively.

OP did not file any evidence despite several opportunity and as they had stopped appearing, hence they were proceeded ex-parte.

4. We have heard the argument on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant is aggrieved by the defective handset sold by OPs. If a look is made at Ex. CW1/B i.e. a faulty compilation report it reads

RESOLUTION DETAILS

Problem Reported by CustomerHandset Related

Problem observed by EngineerMike Faulty

Resolution given by EngineerCustomer Educate to ASC. Customer want same Model Set on Choice

And the handset is in warranty as per the said faulty compilation report and at the same time the complainant has been offered to purchase the handset of his choice as good will gesture alongwith adjustment of 50% cost of device on the upcoming bills. OPs have failed to prove their defence by not filing their evidence. The averments made by the complainant in his complaint have remained unrebutted, hence we are of the opinion that the handset given to the complainant was defective and OP was liable to replace the same with the new one of the same model. As they have failed to do so they are liable of being deficient in delivering service as promised. Hence, we direct OPs to refund Rs.1,949/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further award Rs.7,500/- as compensation against mental harassment and agony inclusive litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R

 

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

       MEMBER                                                                                     MEMBER              

 

 

                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                   PRESIDENT