Delhi

East Delhi

CC/280/2015

MO.SALLEM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPICE MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.280/2015:

In the matter of:

Sh. Mohd. Saleem

S/o. Sh. Jamaluddin,

R/o. 2473, KatraRajjiMohalla,

Niyarian G.B. Road, Delhi – 110 096

Complainant 

Vs

Naresh Electronics (India)

Off. 157, MCD Market, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi – 110 005

 

M/s. Optimum Teleservices,

A-160, 2^nd Floor, Krishna Bhawan,

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur,

Delhi – 110 092

[

Spice Mobile Ltd.

Spice Global Knowledge Park,

19A &19B, Sector -125, Noida – 201 301

Respondents

                Date of Admission -  22/04/2015 

                                                                                                    Date of Order        -  29/09/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

 

            The present complaint has been filed with the allegation that on 07/03/2015 the complainant purchased a Spice Mobile handset Model MI 518 from Respondent No.I for Rs. 6,500/- vide Bill Serial No. 74629. It is alleged that from the very first day of its purchase the mobile was suffering from various defects viz., display lining, display spot issue and on 19/03/2015 it was submitted to Respondent No.II vide Job Sheet No.2357.  The same problem recurred in it and on 24/03/2015 the handset was again submitted to Respondent No.II vide Job Sheet No.30100144F30625 and it was assured by it that the handset would be returned to him duly repaired by 04/04/2015 but when he visited the centre of Respondent No.II on 04/04/2015 it denied to repair the said handset.  It has failed to repair the said mobile handset which was under the warranty period.  The complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs. 6,500/-, the cost of the handset, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses. 

            In response to the notices issued to the respondents only Respondent No.III put up appearance but no written version filed by any of the respondents.  The matter was listed up in Lok Adalat on 11/07/2015 but the matter could not be settled amicably as the respondents did not put up appearance in Lok Adalat also and it was listed up for the filing of the written statements of the respondents on 07/08/2015.  Neither the respondents appeared on 07/08/2015 nor written statement filed by any of them.  Case proceeded exparte against all of them.    

            Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case has not been controverted by the respondents.

            Heard the Ld. Cl. for the complainant and perused the record.

It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Spice Mobile Phone handset Model No. MI 518 bearing IMEI No. 911412100123384 from Respondent No. I herein, vide Bill No.74629, Book No. 747 on 07/03/2015 for Rs.6,500/-.  It is not denied from the side of the Respondents that the warranty of this handset is not of one year. On perusal of the Service Requests filed on record dated 19/03/2015 & 24/03/2015 it is evident that the handset was submitted to the Respondent No.II herein, the Authorized Service Centre of Respondent No.III for display spot issue and lining problem firstly on 19/03/2015 that is within a fortnight after its purchase and thereafter it was submitted again on 24/03/2015 for repairs to Respondent No.II as a repeat bounce case.   The fact that the defects in the said handset have not been rectified and it has not been restored to its proper working condition despite submitting it twice to the Respondent No.II for repairs leaves no room for doubt that the handset was suffering from inherent defects which were beyond repairs.  The fact that the respondents chose not to contest the present complaint despite being served with notice also gives strength to the fact that the handset in question was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects which were beyond repairs and they were well aware of this fact.  It is pertinent to mention here that the handset was in the warranty period and this fact was duly acknowledged in the job sheets of Respondent No.II.   In these circumstances it was obligatory on the part of the Respondent No.II to remove the defects that had arisen in the product during the warranty period or to have forwarded the complaint of the complainant to the manufacturer, the Respondent No.III herein, for replacement of the handset or refund of the cost thereof when it came to the conclusion that the defects that had arisen in the handset was beyond repairs. It was Respondent No.II who had infact thrust upon the complainant the burden of this unwanted litigation.  Had it taken steps to channelize the redressal of the grievance of the complainant at its end when the complainant first approached it prior to the filing of the present complaint, the complainant would not have suffered harassment meted out by him.  As such Respondent No.II is guilty of providing deficient services to him.

It is pertinent to mention here that any manufacturing company offering warranty on its product to its customer is bound to remove the defects that arise in the product during the warranty period and replacement or refund of the cost thereof in case it is not possible to remove the defects.  If the company does not do so, it is guilty of infringing the rights of the consumer.  The fact that the Respondent No.III even after putting up appearance had chosen not to rebut the allegations made in the complaint and reaffirmed by the complainant in his affidavit in evidence leaves no room for doubt that they have admitted the said allegations and in these circumstances it should have offered the complainant either replacement of the handset/refund of its cost to redress his grievance, but it has not done so.  In view of the said discussion we arrive at an inference that the Respondent No.III is also deficient in providing services to the complainant.

No allegation has been made by the complainant in the complaint against Respondent No.I.  In these circumstances, we exonerate the Respondent No.I from any liability vis-a-vis the complainant.  

Taking into consideration the said facts and circumstances, we allow the present complaint and hold the respondents deficient in providing service to the complainant. We direct the Respondent Nos.II and III , jointly or severally, to refund Rs.6,500/-, the cost of the mobile handset together with Rs.2,000/- as compensation for depriving the complainant from using the handset and enjoying its services and for the harassment meted out to him inclusive of the litigation costs.  The complainant shall handover the old handset/original jobsheet and the phone accessories to the abovementioned respondents on receipt of the said amount.

Let the order be complied within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a over the awarded amount till it is finally paid.

Copies of the order may be supplied to the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                        (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                                President