Haryana

Ambala

CC/50/2017

Shyam Sunder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVC - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 50 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 09.02.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 06.03.2018

 

 

Sh. Shyam Sunder Singh O/o Garrison Engineer (Project) Military Engineering Services, Ambala Cantt -133001

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       TVC House, Khandwala Centre, Daftary Road, Malad East, Mumbai-400097.

2.       M/s AIIMS Technology Derabassi, Punjab,

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

3.       Blue Dart, Express LTD Jeevan Jyoti Bhawan, LIC Building, Near AXIS Bank, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt -133001

 

                                                                                ……Proforma  OP

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

OP Nos. 1 & 2 ex-parte v.o.d. 30.03.2017.

Sh. Sanjeev Vashisht, counsel for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that 25 May, 2014 the complainant had booked a mobile named Nuclear SX 5.3I, based on the advertisement by OP No.1 for Rs. 10,090/- and  he had paid Rs. 10,100/- vide bill no.OC3293767 on 28 May 2014. Warranty Card also given with the invoice for one year. After four months, some problems had started like switch off/on button was not working correctly and one part of display screen left side bottom stopped working. Complainant talked to the customer support on the numbers and they told to complainant to send the mobile for repair in customer support at Mumbai. In between complainant was transferred to Jammu & Kashmir area in the Emergency, as complainant is working in Indian Army and he came back to Ambala Cantt in the month of May,2015. On 09 May, 2015 complainant sent the mobile through Blue Dart Express Ltd. On 15 May, 2015 complainant made call to the customer support for confirmation that mobile has been received  and will take back it within two month, after complete repair. On 31 July 2015, 28 Oct. 2015 and 30 Dec. 2015 complainant made call to the customer support for the mobile and they told to him for wait, that parts of the mobile are not available in the market. As parts will be available, then mobile will be return after repair and will be back within 3-4 months. Then customer support numbers were not reachable when called. On 15 April, 2016 the complainant has approached to National Consumer Forum to lodge the complaint telephonically for the same and they told to wait for 07 days for reply.  On 23 April, 2016 again complainant asked the status of his complaint and they told to complainant to send a personal application of the case to TVC Sky Shop. On 04 November 2016 the complainant sent his personal application dated 01 Nov.2016 along with the copies of the connected documents through speed post. On 19 Nov. 2016, after 15 days complainant personal application came back to the complainant mentioned unclaimed on the envelop, due to not received at  your office. From the sending date to the customer support i.e. 09 May, 2015, to till date mobile is held with OP No.1. Due to this, the complainant has suffered huge financial loss, harassment, great mental pain and agony. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Op Nos. 1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2017. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant booked one parcel dated 09.05.2015 vide bill no.14497761121 and charges Rs.410/- for the consignment and the said shipment was delivered at the given address at Mumbai on 11.05.2015 at 16:05 hrs duly received by Mr. Ajay in intact condition and there is no complaint regarding the non-delivery of the product by the complainant. So, there is deficiency on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close his evidence. On the other hand, OP No.3 tendered his affidavit as Annexure R-X and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for the complainant & OP No.3 and carefully gone through the case file. The complainant had booked a mobile named Nuclear SX 5.3i, based on the advertisement by OP No.1 for Rs. 10090/- on 25 May, 2014 and he had paid Rs. 10,100/- vide bill no.OC3293767 on 28 May 2014 from OP No.1 which was having one year warranty as Annexure C-1. The complainant alleged the mobile in question become out of order i.e switch off/on button was not working correctly and one part of display screen left side bottom (keys) stopped working.  On the advised of the customer support/centre, he sent the mobile for repair in customer support, Mumbai through courier as per Annexure C-4. The complainant also made call many times to the customer support but the grievance has not been redressed by the OP No.1. Perusal of the case file reveals that the hand set in question is still lying with the OP No.1 who has neither repaired the hand set nor replaced the same with the new one despite the fact that it developed problems. Due to defect in the mobile, the complainant has been deprived of to use the hand set despite spending handsome amount. In this way, the mobile in question was went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OP No. 1 & 2 to get the same defect free of costs but they did not rectify the problem of mobile in question. In view of the above facts, the complainant has been able to prove his case as the OPs have failed to provide service after selling the product in question which makes them deficient in service as per Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the OP No.1 & 2 have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. The mobile in question is still lying with OP No.1.

OP No.3 has delivered one parcel at the given address at Mumbai   which was duly received by Mr. Ajay one of the official of OP No.1 in intact condition. Since, the OP No.3 has sent only courier and he has no role to play in the subject matter. Therefore, the present complaint against OP No.3 is hereby dismissed.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OP Nos. 1 & 2 with costs and they are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.10,100/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                    Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :06.03.2018                               

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)               (D.N. ARORA)

          Member                             Member                             President