Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/520/2014

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Homeshop 18 - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill, Adv.

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	520/2014
Date of Institution	:	07.10.2014
Date of Decision	:	27/02/2015

 

                  

                                                         

 

Rajesh Kumar r/o # 1020, Dashmesh Nagar, Village Nayagaon, District Mohali, Punjab.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. Homeshop 18, 7th Floor, FC-24, Sector 16-A, Filmcity, Nodia-201301, U.P. through its Managing Director.
2. Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Sector 27, Near Ssr Corporate Tower, Faridabad, Haryana-121003 through its Managing Director.
3. Spice Retail Ltd., S.Global Knowledge Park, 19 A & B, Sector 125, Noida -201301, U.P. through its Managing Director.
4. Vignesh Services, SCO 189-190, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.
5. Durga Communications, SCO-371-373, Cabin No.5, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

(Deleted vide order dated 15.12.2014).

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:      SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.S.S.Gill, Counsel for the complainant.

                        OPs No.1, 2 and 4 exparte.

                        OP No.5 deleted.

Sh.Govind, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Chandeep Singh, Counsel for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 22.02.2014 he purchased a Spice Full High Definition Quad Core Mobile Mi525 through TV advertisement of Opposite Party No.1 vide Order No.939959745 for Rs.9999/-.  According to the complainant, OP No.2 is the seller and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the said mobile handset.  Soon after a month of its purchase, the complainant started experiencing problems with the mobile handset and as such on 25.03.2014 he submitted the same with OP No.4 vide job sheet, Annexure C-2.  Subsequently, on 02.08.2014 the complainant again submitted the mobile handset with OP No.5 vide job sheet, Annexure C-3.  The complainant requested OPs No.4 and 5 to replace the mobile handset but to no effect.  It was averred that the complainant picked up the mobile handset under protest by endorsing on job sheet dated 02.08.2014, Annexure C-4  “received under protest. Requests made for D.O. but not given”.  The complainant again started experiencing the same problems and so he approached OP No.3 through e-mails, Annexure C-5 stating his grievance and requested it for replacement of the mobile handset.  The complainant also registered two complaints at the customer care number of OP No.3.  It was further stated that he handed over the mobile handset to OP No.4 as directed by OP No.3 on 25.09.2014.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP No.3 and gave the IMEI1 number of the mobile handset to the executive of the OP No.3 who told him that the phone was reported for having problems for the first time. After checking the service job sheets, he found out that the IMEI1 number of the mobile handset on the service job sheet generated on 25.03.2014 and 02.08.2014 was different for that of the service job generated on 25.09.2014, Annexure C-6 by OP No.4. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted OP No.5 to which the mobile handset was lastly submitted and asked it how could it change the same without intimating him and the same was informed to OP No.3 through e-mail but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
2.           In the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.3, it has been admitted that the complainant visited the service center on 25.03.2014 and the mobile handset was successfully repaired and handed over to him.  Thereafter, he visited the service center on 02.08.2014 and the mobile handset was repaired satisfactory but he refused to accept the same and accordingly the same was replaced by another handset with the stipulated time.   It was further stated that again the mobile handset was repaired but the complainant did not collect the same and as such it could not be held liable for his own negligence.  It was further stated that OP No.5 changed earlier the mobile handset of the complainant as per the limited warranty terms because the same was not repairable.  The remaining allegations were denied, being false. According to Opposite Party No.3, there was no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint qua it deserves to be dismissed.
3.           Notices sent for the service of Opposite Party No.2 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 08.12.2014, it was proceeded against exparte. 
4.           Notices were sent for the service of Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 through registered post on 10.11.2014.  However, neither the same were received back undelivered nor any acknowledgements were received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that they had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 on the date fixed, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.12.2014.
5.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP No.3 controverting its stand and reiterating his own.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
7.           After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the Counsel for the parties and the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter.   Annexure C-2 is the copy of the job sheet dated 25.03.2014 issued by Authorized Service Center of Spice Retail Ltd.  whereby the complainant handed over the mobile handset in question with the problems of “hanging and battery back-up low”.   Annexure C-3 is the another job sheet dated 02.08.2014 issued by Authorized Service Center of Spice Retail Ltd. whereby the complainant handed over the mobile handset in question with the problem “touch not work”.  Annexure C-4 is the job sheet dated 02.08.2014 whereby the complainant received the alleged changed handset by endorsing the remarks  “Received under protest. Requests made for D.O., but not given”.  Opposite Party No.3 even its written statement at para 3, on merits, admitted that the mobile handset, in question, was not repairable. Once the mobile handset in question was not repairable then it was the liability of the Opposite Parties either to refund its price or to replace the same with a new one under the sealed box but the same was changed with old one on 02.08.2014 and that was the reason the complainant received the same under protest as is evident from Annexure C-4. Pertinently, the changed mobile handset was also a defective one as the same was not working properly and, as such, the same was handed over to  OP No.4 Authorized Service Center of OP No.3 as is evident from the job sheet dated 25.09.2014, Annexure C-6.  The Opposite Parties failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite receipt of the e-mails. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone in question after spending hefty amount from his pocket but due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he was deprived of its pleasures and usage.
8.           As a sequel to the above findings, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.9,999/-, being the price of the mobile handset in question, to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation.

9.           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27/02/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

cmg