Punjab

Sangrur

CC/464/2016

Nitesh Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.S Retail Service Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Jindal

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  464

                                                Instituted on:    26.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.11.2016

 

Nitesh Verma son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of House No.1028, Ward No.5, Gali No. 3, Preet Colony, Backside New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             WS Retail Services Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH-8, Opposite Tata Service Centre, Bilaspur (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.             WS Retail Services Private Limited, Registered Office: Ozone Manay Tech Park, No.56/18, B-Block, 9^th Floor, Garvebhavipiya, Hosur Road, Bangalore through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.

3.             Network Business Group, SCO 45, Ground Floor, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

4.             Flipkart India Private Limited, Bilaspur Pataudi Road, Near Bilaspur Chowk at NH-8, Opposite TATA Service Centre, Bilaspur (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri Ritesh Jindal, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2       :               Shri Jasjit Moudgil,Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

For OP NO.4             :               Shri Sudarshan Vashisht, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Nitesh Verma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant booked one Letv mobile set on OP number 4 on 25.2.2016 vide order number OD305322269693560000 which was having one year warranty/guarantee.  It is further averred that the OP despatched the mobile set on 25.2.2016 which was received by the complainant on 29.2.2016 after payment of Rs.10,997/-.  It is further averred in the complaint that in the month of May, 2016, the above said mobile set started to give charging problem, automatically switched off etc, as such, the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP number 4 on their customer care centre and the officials of the OP number 4 told the complainant to return the mobile set to OP number 3 for replacement.  Further case of the complainant is that on the asking of OP number 4, the complainant returned the mobile set to OP number 3 on 25.2.2016 for replacement against job card number JS16052500045 dated 25.5.2016. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant received a number of emails regarding resolving the problem of the complainant whenever the complainant sent emails and made calls to the centre of the OPs, but the mobile set was not returned to the complainant despite sending a registered letter dated 18.7.2016 to the Ops number 3 and 4.  It is further averred that nothing happened despite the fact that the mobile set is in the custody of the OP number 3 since 25.5.2016.  Thus, alleging   deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.10,997/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               Record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte.

 

3.               In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the averments made in the complaint does not point out any specific grievance against the OPs and that the OPs are merely a reseller, registered on flipkart.com.   On merits, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.  It is stated that the Ops number 1 and 2 never gave any guarantee/warranty of the mobile set in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and lastly the Ops number 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.               In reply filed by Op number 4, somewhat similar objections have been taken as taken by OPs number 1 and 2 and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

5.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 4.7.2016, Ex.C-3 copy of service job sheet, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 copies of emails, Ex.C-9 copy of letter, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.Op1&2/1 affidavit with annexure OP1/A and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit with annexure Ex.OP4/1 and closed evidence.

 

6.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.                 Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 4 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.10,997/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 25.2.2016 and further availed the services of the OPs number 3 and 4.

 

8.               In the present case, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the mobile set through OP number 4 on 25.2.2016 which was delivered to the complainant on 29.2.2016, as is evident from the copy of bill/invoice on record, but the mobile set in question developed defects such as charging problem and automatically switch off problem as such, the complainant approached OP number 4, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 3 i.e. the service centre and as such the complainant deposited the mobile set in question with the Op number 3 on 25.5.2016 vide job sheet dated 25.5.2016, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  In the present case the OP number 3 chose to remain exparte and even failed to deny the allegations levelled in the complaint.  A bare perusal of the job sheet Ex.C-3 issued by OP number 3 clearly shows that the mobile set in question was having the problem of ‘not charging up’.  It is the specific case of the complainant that the OPs did not return the mobile set after repairs nor refunded the amount of Rs.10,997/- being the cost of the mobile set.  We have further perused the copy of email dated 9.7.2016 sent by OP number 3, wherein it has been mentioned that ‘we wanted to let you know that we have escalated your issues to the brand and brand provided update to check with service centre and before 15-jul,-2016 product will be given back’.  Similarly, Ex.C-6 is the copy of email wherein it has been mentioned that “due to unavailability of parts brand could not send the mobile on time. Now they have come up with new resolution date and your phone will be replaced by 15^th July.”  It is worth mentioning here that despite the assurances given by the Ops, the mobile set in question was not replaced nor the Ops have refunded back the cost of the mobile set to the complainant, which seems to be a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

9.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,997/- being the cost of the mobile set in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.07.2016 till realisation. The OPs  shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

10.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 21, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member