| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 629 of 2015 Date of Institution: 19-10-2015 Date of Decision: 17-03-2016 Dilawar Singh alias Gurpreet Singh aged about 16 years minor so of Karamjit Singh, resident of 697, Kirpal Colony, Majitha Road, Amritsar through his father, natural guardian, next friend Sh.Karamjit Singh who has got no adverse interest against the minor. Complainant Versus Wickedleak INC, Ist Floor, Aditya Villa, Waman Wadi Lane Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai-400071 through its owner/ partner/ MD/ Manager/ Authorized Person. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the complainant: Sh.Kamaljit Singh father of complainant. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sumant Tuteja, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Dilawar Singh minor through his father Karamjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant booked one Mobile Set Wammy Neo 5’0 HD Android 4.4 Octa Core vide order 004867 with Opposite Party and accordingly, the Opposite Party sent said Mobile Set through carrier Standard Shipping and issued bill bearing Invoice No.IN004678 dated 22.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.11,990/-. From the very start, Mobile Set in question started giving problems. The main defect was touch problem. The complainant made complaint to Opposite Party and Opposite Party called the Mobile Set through JV Express vide Pick Up receipt WIC42005/Wickedieal 4867 for repair and same was delivered back after about one month, but the problem was not fully cured. Again the complaint was made to Opposite Party and Opposite Party called the Mobile Set of the complainant through Gojavas vide request No. 305832 and order No. 4867 receipt No. 903502 dated 12.6.2015. After two months, the Mobile Set in question was delivered back, but there was again same problem in the Mobile Set in question. Complainant again made complaint to Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party refused to pick up the Mobile Set in question on their expenses through Overnite Express on 8.10.2015, but till date the complainant has not received back the Mobile Set in question from the Opposite Party. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party either to replace the ms in question with new one or to refund the price of Rs.11,900/- alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Mobile Set of the complainant was checked a number of times and found no defect and has also sent Mobile Set back, but the complainant never took the delivery of the same. The Mobile Set of the complainant was picked up from the complainant’s house and was returned back through Gojavas vide receipt dated 12.6.2015 after finding no defects in the Mobile Set in question. Complainant again sent the Mobile Set through overnight express on 8.10.2015. Actually, the Opposite Party shipped the Mobile Set in question to the complainant on 24.11.2015 vide DTDC doc No.2026711051, but the complainant refused to accept the said shipment and was returned back. Furthermore the op again sent the ms this time through different courier namely Gojavas vide doc. No.MUMWDLP101905 dated 22.12.2015, but the complainant again refused to accept the said Mobile Set and is now in transit back to Opposite Party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Aditya Siddharth Mehta Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by attorney of the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased one Mobile Set Wammy Neo 5’0 HD Android 4.4 Octa Core online through Snap deal vide Invoice No.IN004678 dated 22.10.2014 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.11,990/-. Complainant submitted that from the very start, the Mobile Set in question did not work properly as it has touch problem. The complainant made complaint to Opposite Party vide Pick Up receipt Ex.C3 dated 10.3.2015 for report and the same was delivered back to the complainant after one month. Complainant submitted that Mobile Set in question was not fully cured/ rectified and the complainant again made complaint to the Opposite Party through pick up receipt Ex.C4 dated 12.6.2015 and the Opposite Party delivered the Mobile Set to the complainant. Complainant submitted that again same problem occurred in the Mobile Set of the complainant. Then on 8.10.2015 the complainant again made complaint and sent Mobile Set vide pick up receipt Ex.C5 dated 8.10.2015, but this time, Mobile Set in question was not returned to the complainant nor Opposite Party replaced the same. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that as and when the complaint was received from the complainant regarding any defect in the Mobile Set in question, Opposite Party picked up the Mobile Set from the complainant and returned the same to the complainant after repair bearing all the expenses of pick up and sending the Mobile Set to the complainant. It is not in dispute that complainant received Mobile Set after repair twice on the same address. Lastly, the complainant made complaint regarding the defect in the Mobile Set on 8.10.2015. Again the Opposite Party picked up the Mobile Set from the complainant. Said Mobile Set was fully repaired and Opposite Party sent Mobile Set to the complainant after repair vide Tracking Results Ex.OP3 dated 24.11.2015, but the Mobile Set in question was not received by the complainant and it was returned to the Opposite Party with the remarks that no such person is residing at the given address. Again on 22.12.2015 Opposite Party sent the fully repaired Mobile Set of the complainant, to the complainant vide Tracking Results Ex.OP4. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that this Mobile Set was purchased by Karamjit Singh in the name of his minor son Dilawar Singh (complainant). The complainant did not receive the Mobile Set intentionally just to get the replacement of the Mobile Set or refund of the price, whereas the Mobile Set of the complainant is fully functional, but the complainant did not receive the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Karamjit Singh father of complainant Dilawar Singh purchased the Mobile Set in question online through Snap Deal on 22.10.2014 vide invoice Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.11,900/-. Said Mobile Set has some problem of touch screen. The complainant made complaint to Opposite Party and the Opposite Party picked up the Mobile Set of the complainant on 10.3.2015 Ex.C3 and returned the same after rectifying the defect in the Mobile Set, to the complainant and he used the same. Again on 12.6.2015 the Opposite Party received complaint regarding the Mobile Set of the complainant and Opposite Party picked up the Mobile Set of the complainant vide pick up receipt Ex.C4 dated 12.6.2015. Opposite Party returned the Mobile Set to the complainant after repair and making it fully functional, to the complainant. Lastly, on 8.10.2015 the complainant made complaint regarding the Mobile Set and the same was picked up by the Opposite Party vide pick up receipt Ex.C5 dated 8.10.2015. Thereafter, after repair, Opposite Party sent the Mobile Set to the complainant vide Tracking Results Ex.OP3 dated 24.11.2015, but the complainant did not receive the same. Again the Opposite Party on 22.12.2015 sent Mobile Set of the complainant, to the complainant vide Tracking Results of the courier Ex.OP4, but again the complainant did not receive the same and the courier returned the Mobile Set of the complainant to the Opposite Party with the remarks ‘no such person is residing there’. How it can be possible that the complainant already received the Mobile Set from the Opposite Party on the same address twice and now how it can be said that the complainant was not residing at the site i.e. on the same address and he intentionally did not receive/ get the Mobile Set on 24.11.2015 and 22.12.2015 only with the intention to get the Mobile Set replaced after using the Mobile Set for one year. The complainant intentionally did not receive this Mobile Set on 24.11.2015 and 22.12.2015 because the warranty of the Mobile Set in question has already expired on 22.10.2015. All this shows that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainant can get the Mobile Set from the Opposite Party at any time. But this Forum do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party qua the complainant.
- Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 17-03-2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
