Delhi

East Delhi

CC/274/2016

ABRAR ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.S RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 274/16

 

Shri Abrar Ali

S/o Shri Abbas Ali

R/o A-48, Near Allahabad Bank

Main Road, Kanti Nagar

Metro Pillar No. 103

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 051                                                                 ….Complainant

Vs.     

1. W.S. Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors

Regd. Of.: Ozone Manay Tech Park

No. 56/18, B-Block, 9^th Floor

Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road

Bangalore, Karnataka

 

2. M/s.Strength Service Center Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Directors

‘Off.: W-88, 1^st Floor, Shakarpur

Near Baba Balak Nath Mandir

Delhi – 110 092

 

3. Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd.

12^th Floor, Tower-D

DLF Cyber Greens

DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon – 122 002                                            …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 30.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 25.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 12.02.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Abrar Ali against W.S. Retail Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), the seller, M/s. Strength Service Center Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), the Authorized Service Centre and Motorola Mobility India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), the manufacturer, with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased one mobile  phone of Motorola VI98221 on 22.08.2015 vide invoice no. BLR-WFLD20150801000791 from OP-1 by paying an amount of Rs. 7,000/-.  In the month of October, 2015, there was some problem regarding the connectivity with Wi-Fi and network in the phone for which the complainant deposited the phone with OP-2 and got it back on 27.11.2015. 

            In the month of November 2015, the same problem persisted in the phone and there was also problem in 4G network.  The complainant again deposited the phone with OP-2 on 04.12.2015 and was assured that the repaired phone will be handed over to him after 15-20 days.

            It was stated that the complainant visited the office of OP-2 for collecting his phone and every time he was told that the kit for 4G network was not available in the market.  The phone of the complainant was lying with OP-2

            The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.02.2016 to OPs, which was replied by OP-1 vide reply dated 30.03.2016, but his mobile phone was neither repaired nor replaced.

Hence, the complainant prayed for directions to OP to replace the defective mobile with brand new mobile of the same model; to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards harassment and mental pain &agony and Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed legal notice dated 23.02.2016 to all the OPs alongwith postal receipts, reply of legal notice by OP-1, retail invoice bill, copy of job sheet dated 17.10.2015 and 04.12.2015 alongwith the complaint.    

3.         Written Statement was filed by OP-1, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as they were a registered reseller on the website www.flipkart.com.  The warranty/guarantee and after sale service of the products were provided by manufacturers/traders subject to the terms and conditions; 30 days replacement warranty was provided by them from the date of purchase. It was submitted that the product in question had been working properly for more than a month.  Hence, there was no deficiency on their part. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

            Notice of the present complaint was also served upon OP-2 by way of Dasti but they chose not to appear they were proceeded ex-parte. AR for OP-3 appeared, but did not file their WS despite several opportunities and subsequently stopped appearing, hence all the OPs were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       In support of its case, the complainant has got examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit, the facts he has narrated in the complaint. He has got exhibited documents such as copy of legal notice dated 23.02.2016 and its postal receipts (Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/4), reply of legal notice in support of its case as of (Ex. CW-1/5), copy of retail tax invoice bill          (Ex. CW-1/6), copy of job sheet dated 17.10.2015 and 04.2.2015 (Ex. CW-1/7 and 1/8) respectively.

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant is aggrieved by the defective handset sold to him by OP-1 which was manufactured by OP-3. To substantiate his allegations complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 22.08.2015 and job sheet issued by OP-2 of date 17.10.2015 and 04.12.2015. In both the job sheets the problem reported is “Wi-Fi not connect and network issue, ringer not working + network and Wi-Fi not connecting”  so this implies that the complainant had to deposit his handset for repairs for the same problem time and again. Even the handset deposited with OP-2 was delivered on 27.11.2015 which was almost after 40 days and there also the complainant has endorsed “ringer not working properly”. Thus, it is unambiguous that there was defect in the handset which could not be repaired despite service. Hence, we hold OP-2 and    OP-3, jointly and severally liable to refund the cost of the handset i.e.       Rs. 7,000/- alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, as the handset was defective and also for delay in delivery of repaired handset which amounts to deficiency in after sale service.

            No liability on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be fastened on OP-1, as the complainant has placed no document on record to prove that there was breach of terms and conditions by OP-1 and their failure to replace the defective handset within 30 days of purchase.

            The order be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order by OP-3 else Rs. 17,000/- shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Further, the complainant is also directed to return the handset upon receipt of the awarded amount.  

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

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

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President