The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant noticing the advertisement of Spice Mobile phone given by Spice Retail Limited through
Television Channel in homeshop 18.com was interested and ordered for a Spice Fulltouch Dual Sim Android Phone (Model Mi-347), Vide order no. 959885493, dated 6.12.2014with payment mode cash on delivery. The offer was made with a free Golden Back Cover at Rs.2,499/- with one year warranty of replacement in case of defect. The mobile phone with IMEI no.911410600446305 & 911410600446313 was delivered to the petitioner with retail invoice vide no.NITCDRH/DHR/12/2014/3661308 dated 7.12.14 through Blue Dart courier Service and he paid Rs.2,499/- in cash on delivery. He checked the article which was seemed in good condition. The further case of the complainant that within one month, the complainant found problem in touch system and speaker and also the mobile phone was going to hang. He made contact with Op no.1 who advised to meet Op no.2 Shree Shyam Services, aurhorised service centre. The complainant handed over the mobile set to the oP no.2 on 23.3.2015 and taken it back on 30.3.2015. But the problem against started on 18.4.15. The OP no.2 advised the complainant to send the mobile to the company’s lab . The Op no.2 returned the set to the complainant on 14.5.15 but problem was still there and again the complainant handed over the phone to the oP no.2 on 18.5.15. But the Op no.2 on 31.7.2015, gave the petitioner an old defective set with different IMEI
no.911410601224248 and 911410601224255 and without golden back cover. But the complainant did not receive the said set and the complainant thereafter finding no other alternative has come before this Forum for redressal.
Opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op no.1 is that the Op no.1 possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business, which they carry out. The Op acted in good faith and offered the best of it services to the complainant of device. But the complainant alleged against the Op no.1 to blackmail him with an intention to make monetary profit via means of compensation. The Op no.1 further submitted that under ordinary circumstances bona fide action has been taken by the Op no.1 which cannot be held to be as deficiency in service.
Op no.2 although appeared to contest the case but ultimately did not file Written version and contested the case. So, the case heard exparte against the Op no.2.
Complainant filed photo copy of Retail invoice , photo copy of service job sheet and one photo copy of letter dated 9.11.2015 addressed to Op no.1 and Op
no.2. The complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of Argument. Op no.1 on the other hand filed Written version, Evidence in chief and W.N.A.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by both the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted position that the complainant purchased mobile from Opposite party on 6.12.2014 at a price of Rs.2499/- with warranty upto 5.12.2015. But the set was not functioning properly. The said matter was placed before the Op no.2 on 23.3.2014 but the was unable to solve the problem and this matter was well within the knowledge of Op no.1 and the said mobile set was lying with Op no.2 till 11.6.2015. The complainant was deprived service by the oP . The approach and statement of Op no.1 before this Forum in a fashion which is not
supported by any legal person, devoid of any rules and force . Op no.1 has forgotten his duty towards the customer/consumer. It is reflected in the record that Op no.1 and Op no. 2 had enough opportunity as per the Written Notes of argument filed by oP no.1 to cure the sufferings of the complainant but both of them did not make any attempt to give relief to the customer/consumer i.e. the complainant. The responsibility of service giver has been forgotten by the business man like Op no.1 and oP no.2 who acted in collusion with each other and habituated to sell the defective machine to the ignorant and illiterate customer who is in darkness regarding the working of electronic instrument. So, further discussion in this case is unwanted regarding the conduct the conduct of the oP no.1 and Op no.2, which deserved to be rectified.
Accordingly, the material on record convince us fully that the complainant’s case succeed. The complainant is entitled to get relief as per provision of C.P.Act, 1986. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 30 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Ops are directed to replace the mobile in question by a new one with same model and warranty to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to
the complainant towards compensation for his mental agony, harassment and pain. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The Ops are directed to comply the above orders within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day will be imposed upon the oPs and that amount will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
