Delhi

North East

CC/287/2016

SABIR ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZEN MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 287/16

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sabir Ali S/o Habib Khan, H.No-14 A, Gali No 1 Harijan Basti, KardamPuri, Jyoti Nagar Dayalpur, North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Zen Mobile Company Plot No1, Khasra No. 261, Kohinoor Enclave, Western Marg, Saidulajab, New Delhi 110030 Home Shop 18 7th Floor FC 24 Sector 16A Filmcity, Noida Uttar Pradesh-201301	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

24.10.2016 30.08.2022 09.11.2022

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

      Case of the Complainant

1. The Case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 16.09.2016 the Complainant ordered a mobile of Zen Company amounting to Rs. 3,650/- from Opposite Party No-2. After receiving the order, the Complainant started to have switched on problem in the mobile. The Complainant stated that he had registered the complaint inOpposite Party No-1 Company and they assured him that they will replace the mobile or refund his money. The Complainant submitted that on 05.10.2016 the worker of Opposite Party No-1 came to him and takes the mobile phone in question with him. The Complainant stated that when he did not get his mobile phone back or the refund of his mobile. He made calls the Opposite Party No-1 and on 22.10.16 the Opposite Party No-1 clearly denied to return the mobile phone in question or the refund of that mobile. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for the Rs. 3650/- i.e. the cost of the mobile phone and Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No-1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No- 1 that no complaint was ever registered by the Complainant with Opposite Party No. 1 regarding the performance of mobile hand set purchased by him from Opposite Party No. 2 which itself enough to prove that the Complainant is having no grievance against Opposite Party No. 1. As per the version of the Opposite party No. 2, the Complainant snatched the other mobile phone from their delivery boy without making payment for the same. Therefore, dispute arose between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 2 resulted into non resoluction of Complainant’s complaint which he had made with Opposite Party No 2. It is once again reiterated that Opposite Party No. 1 is not a necessary party to this complain. Opposite Party No. 1 also stated that the present complaint filed by the Complainant related only with dispute between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e Home Shop 18 as it is admitted fact by Complainant as well as Opposite Party No 2 that upon the complaint of the Complainant regarding some issue with the product, executive of Opposite Party had pick up the mobile phone from the Complainant for refund of payment made by the Complainant. However, due to some dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite party No. 2 the refund could not be affected. The Opposite Party was never aware about the dispute between Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 till the date of receiving the notice of present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint should be dismissed against Opposite Party No. 1 due to mis-joinder its name in the complaint without any lapse and/or deficiency on its party.

Case of Opposite Party No.2

3. Opposite Party No 2 filed written statement wherein it has denied the averments of the complaint and has stated that the Complainant placed an order for Zen 12.7 cm Android Phone-Admire Punch- Blue worth Rs. 3,650/- vide sub order no. 137439985. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the Complainant received the Product on 18.09.2016 sent by vendor North India Top Company Pvt. It is submitted that after delivery on 18.09.2016 Complainant contacted Opposite Party and informed that the said product has some issues with regard to ring tone and screen. Accordingly, the customer executive provided the contact number of manufacturing brand i.e. Opposite Party No. 1 to Complainant and asked him to contact with brand to resolve his issues as the Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the product. However, on the same day i.e 18.09.2016 Complainant again placed a fresh order to purchase the same model of the said product in the name of Shakir Ali vide new sub order number 137529255 with cash-on-delivery mode. Interestingly, at the time of delivery of new product, Complainant snatched the product from delivery boy and refused to pay the cost of product, despite several request Complainant did not paid the product cost and threatened the delivery boy to leave his place. It is further submitted that the snatching team/courier arranged reverse pick up of the said product on 21.09.2016, and the pickup was done on 05.10.2016. After the pickup confirmation Opposite Party No. 2 prepared refund cheque bearing number 193383 dated 13.10.2016 drawn on Yes Bank of Rs. 3,650/- of paid amount of the said product and handed over for delivery to delivery team. The delivery team kept the refund cheque on hold as the Complainant has not paid for the product purchased against sub order number 137529255.

Rejoinder to Written Statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant did not file any evidence in support of his case.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No-1

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rohit Kumar, Authorized Representative for Opposite Party No-1, having its corporate office at Plot No-2A, Ist floor, Wing-A, Sec-126, Noida-201301wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Evidence of Opposite Party No-2

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Apurv Narula, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No-2, having its registered office at Empire complex, 1st Floor, 414 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, and corporate office at 7^th Floor,FC-24, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida-201301 wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant, Opposite Parties and have perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Mobile phone of Opposite Party No. 1 i.e Zen Mobile Company through Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Home Shop 18 for Rs. 3,650/- and he received the phone on 16.09.2016. After receiving the phone he has faced problem with the phone for which he made a complaint with the Opposite Party No. 2. On 18.09.2016 Opposite Party No. 2 arranged a reverse pickup of the phone on 21.09.2016 and the pickup was done on 05.10.2016. After pickup confirmation, Opposite Party No. 2 prepared refund cheque for the value of the phone i.e 3,650/- but refund cheque was not delivered to the Complainant as Complainant did not paid for the another mobile phone.
9. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 3,650/- from the Opposite Party No. 2. The said mobile phone was not working properly and the Complainant made a complaint for the same with Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 told the Complainant that the mobile phone in question would be taken back by it and therefore payment i.e cost of the mobile phone would be paid back to the Complainant. The said mobile phone was taken by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 05.10.2016 and admittedly a cheque of Rs. 3,650/- was prepared in favor of the Complainant. However, the said cheque was not issued to the Complainant on the pretext that the Complainant has purchased another mobile phone of the same value from Opposite Party No. 2 and the Complainant did not pay the cost of the said mobile phone to Opposite Party No. 2. So far as the purchase of another mobile phone by the Complainant from Opposite Party No. 2 or it is nonpayment is concerned that is a separate transaction and the Opposite Party No. 2 has a separate remedy for the same. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to pay the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs. 3,650/- for the mobile phone which has taken back from the Complainant as the same was not working properly.
10.  In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No. 2 shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,650/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No. 2 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment, pain & agony and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
11. Order announced on 09.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President