Punjab

Sangrur

CC/411/2016

Deepankar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

WS Retail Services Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Tarun Goyal

01 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 411                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:   01.06.2016                                                                                   

                                                                   Decided on:    01.11.2016

 

Deepankar Gupta son of Shubash Chander resident of H.No.372 Pushap Cottage, Jakhal Road Near Axis Bank Sunam 148028, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. WS Retail Services Pvt. Limited Khasra No.435, Road No.#04 , Lal Dora Ext. Mahipalpur, Delhi India 110037, through its Manager.
2. Flipkart.com 447/B, 1st A cross, 12th Main 4th Block, Opposite BSNL Telephone Exchangen, Koramangala Bangolare-560034, Karantka India through its M.D.
3. Manufacture of Lenovo A600 Plus Mobile Phone to be disclosed by the parties.   

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                     Shri Tarun Goyal Advocate.                      

 

FOR THE  OPP. PARTY  No.1      :     Shri Bikramjit Khatra Adv.                        

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.2      :       Shri Jasjeet Singh, Adv.                        

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Deepankar Gupta, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he online placed an order  to purchase one Lenovo A600 plus  mobile phone  with OP no.2 on 02.06.2015 which was delivered vide retail invoice dated 03.06.2015 and  an amount of Rs.7499/- was paid by the complainant. The mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.1 through OP No.2. After 4/5 months, the mobile set started giving problems i.e. more battery consumption, loss of network etc. for which the complainant approached the service centre at Patiala who after removing the defects returned the same.  But it again started to give same problems for which the complainant again approached the service centre who told the complainant that it is problem of software and it cannot be cured without payment. The complainant requested the OPs that the mobile set is under warranty period so they are liable to repair the same but OPs refused to repair the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

 

i)      OPs be directed to return the amount of Rs.7499/-  along with interest,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.45000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but despite service the OP no. 2 did not appear and as such OP No.2 was proceeded exparte.  The OP No.1 had appeared through Shri J.S.Sahni Advocate but despite affording  so many opportunities to the OP No.1, it did not file any written reply  and ultimately on 17.08.2016 opportunity  to file the written reply was closed by order of the Forum.

3.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. After closing the evidence of the complainant, Shri Bikramjit Khatra Advocate had appeared for OP No.1and tendered an affidavit along with annexure OP1/A and closed evidence. Shri Jasjeet Singh Advocate had appeared for OP No.2 and tendered  an affidavit along with annexure OP2/A and closed evidence on behalf of the OP no.2.

4.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that he online placed an order  to purchase one Lenovo A600 plus  mobile phone  with OP no.2 on 02.06.2015 which was delivered vide retail invoice dated 03.06.2015 and  an amount of Rs.7499/- was paid by the complainant which is evident from retail invoice/bill Ex.C-1. The mobile set in question was sold by the OP No.1 through OP No.2. It has been stated by the complainant that after 4/5 months, the mobile set started giving problems i.e. more battery consumption and loss of network etc. for which he  approached the service centre at Patiala who after removing the defects returned the same.  But it again started to give same problems for which the complainant again approached the service centre who told the complainant that it is problem of software and it cannot be cured without payment. The complainant requested the OPs that the mobile set is under warranty period so they are liable to repair the same but OPs refused to repair the same.

5.             The complainant has produced on record report of an expert namely Dinesh Kumar  along with his affidavit Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 respectively wherein he opined that after  thorough checking and  using the mobile set in question  he found that the mobile set  is giving the alleged problem due to manufacturing defect  which is  not curable one.

6.             Another aspect of the case is that the OPs failed to file written reply to the complaint but at the stage of adducing the evidence the OPs No.1 and 2 have produced their respective affidavits in their evidence.  It is settled law that without pleadings the evidence produced by the party can not considered.  In the instant case the position is similar. Hence, affidavits produced by the OPs no.1 and 2 in their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.   As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  We feel that since the mobile set in question became defective within the warranty period so the OPs are liable to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model. 

7.             In view of the above discussion, we  allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs no.1&2 who are jointly and severally liable to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same model. We further direct the OPs no.1&2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of compensation being mental pain agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.        

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from  the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                November 01, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Member                                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-