Delhi

StateCommission

FA/800/2013

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARUN PHAWA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 18.04.2017

 

First Appeal-800/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi in complaint case No. 101/2011)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.

          C-48, Okhala Industrial Area,

          Phase-II New Delhi- 110 020

          Through Authorized Signatory

 

……. Appellant      Versus       1. Tarun Pahwa S/o Sri. M.L. Pahwas R/o KU 76, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110088   2. M/s Vaishno Electronics 131 MCD Market, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.             This is an appeal filed against the order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Consumer Disptues Redressal Forum, Tis Hazari, Delhi in complaint case No. 101/2011.

2.             By the impugned order the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed OPs- 1 & 2 to jointly and severally refund Rs. 15,000/- the price of Black Berry mobile phone along with interest @ 6% from 05.06.2011  till realization and also Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

3.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant who was OP-1 before the Ld. District Forum had filed the present appeal.

4.             Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant approached OP-2 i.e. M/s Vaishno Electronics Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of mobile phone on 05.06.2010. At the time of purchasing the phone OP-2 who is respondent-2 herein told the respondent/complainant that he was an authorized dealer of Black Berry mobile phone. Accordingly, the respondent/complainant asked for Black Berry phone Model No. 9500. The allegation of the respondent/complainant was that on 05.06.2010  he had purchased a Black Berry mobile phone No. 9500 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and the bill was issued by OP-2. It was also alleged by the respondent/complainant that OP-2 at the time of purchasing the phone assured that in case of any problem, the respondent/complainant could contact appellant-1/OP-1 i.e. Vodafone whose address was provided on the box of the mobile phone. Further allegation of the respondent/complainant was that the Black Berry Phone started giving trouble shortly after its purchase as the touch screen was not responding and there were also some issue of low battery life, software problem and touch screen problem. Due to said problems, the respondent/complainant who is an advocate by profession faced lots of difficulties. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant contacted respondent-2/OP-2 from whom he had purchased the said phone. The respondent-2/OP-2 told the respondent/complainant to go to appellant/OP-1 at Vodafone Store, Kamla Nagar, Delhi for redressal of his grievances. When the respondent/complainant approached appellant/OP-1 i.e. Vodafone Store, it refused to entertain his complaint and told that the said phone was defective and had no warranty and asked him to contact respondent-2/OP-2 who duped the respondent/complainant by selling the defective phone. Harrassed respondent/complainant again contacted respondent-2/OP-2, who also refused to entertain the complaint of the respondent/complainant. Getting no relief from the appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2 from where he purchased the mobile phone, the respondent/complainant purchased a new phone and also issued a legal notice to appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2. After getting no response the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:

                “It is therefore respectfully prayed that the respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) along with interest @ 18% to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

                Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances explained above be passed in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.”

5.             The Ld. District Forum issued notice to both the appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2. The appellant/OP-1 had appeared before the Ld. District Forum and filed written statement. Respondent-2/OP-2 was served but it did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The appellant/OP-1 stated in its written statement that it was neither the seller nor importer of the handset sold to respondent/complainant hence it is not a necessary party to this complaint. It was further stated in the written statement that respondent/complainant had not placed on record any warranty associated with handset purchased and also not submitted the necessary particulars about his visit to Kamla Nagar, Vodafone Store like job sheet etc. and denied that the respondent/complainant visited the Kamla Nagar Vodafone Store of appellant/OP-1 for repair of his handset and therefore no case was made out against appellant/OP-1. It was also stated that the complainant’s claim of 45,000/- towards the compensation was frivolous and baseless.

6.             Thereafter, the respondent/complainant had filed his evidence by way of affidavit reiterating all facts as are alleged in the complaint. On the other hand, appellant/OP-1 filed its affidavit in the District Forum justifying all the facts as mentioned in the written statement filed by it.

7.             Considering the evidence filed by the respondent/complainant as well as of appellant/OP-1, the Ld. District Forum passed an award in favour of the respondent/complainant and directed appellant/OP-1 and respondent-2/OP-2 to jointly and severally refund Rs. 15,000/- i.e. price of Black Berry mobile phone purchased by the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date 05.06.2010 when the mobile handset was purchased till the amount paid to the complainant along with Rs. 2000/- as costs to the complainant.

8.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/OP-1 has filed this appeal basically on two grounds. The first objection raised by the appellant/OP-1 is that the appellant/OP-1 is not a necessary party to the case as the defective handset of the respondent/complainant was neither sold nor imported by the appellant/OP-1. Merely because the appellant/OP-1 has a business relationship with the importer/manufacturer does not make the appellant/OP-1 liable for the defect in the mobile handset of which the appellant/OP-1 is neither the seller nor the manufacturer. The another stand of the appellant/OP-1 is that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. In view of the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan” reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), it has been held that Consumer Foras do not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute between a Consumer and a telegraph authority as special remedy is provided under Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885.

9.             At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of respondent/complainant. Hence we requisitioned the record of the Ld. District Forum. We have gone through the record of the case and have heard the submissions of counsel for the appellant/OP-1. The respondent/complainant has placed on record copy of invoice dated 05.06.2010 for purchase of Black Berry phone model No. 9500 for Rs. 15,000/- from respondent-2/OP-2. The respondent/complainant has also placed on record copy of invoice for purchase of another Black Berry phone of Rs. 21,500/-. The respondent/complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the invoice wherein the name of Hutchison Max Pvt. Ltd. is printed. It is the stand of the respondent/complainant that the Vodafone was earlier known as Hutchison.  Hutchison/Vodafone are the same entity hence is Vodafone is the importer of the phone. It is an admitted case of the parties that the respondent/complainant has purchased the Black Berry mobile phone from respondent-2/OP-2 and it is also not disputed that the phone had developed certain defects.

10.            The respondent/complainant has filed on record invoice dated 05.06.2010 for Rs. 15,000/- which was issued by respondent-2/OP-2 wherein on the right hand side the emblem of the Vodafone is printed and also along with the complaint the respondent/complainant has also filed copy of writing on the box in which phone purchased by the respondent/complainant was packed wherein it is printed Customer care: Contact our service Agent at your nearest Vodafone store, manager, customer service, Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013, Phone No. 0902055666, email:cusomercare @ hmppl.com.

11.            The argument of the appellant/OP-1 is that he has no connection with respondent-2/OP-2. Contrary to that we perused the writing/printing of the box which was purchased by the respondent/complainant, in which the phone was packed, we find that it has been specifically written that the customer can contact nearest Vodafone store. The case of the appellant/OP-1 is not that it is not a  Vodafone store. Therefore we are of the opinion that the appellant/OP-1 has a business connection with importer of the mobile phone and it is wrong to state that appellant/OP-1 has no business obligation and liability towards customers. Another contention of the appellant/OP-1 is that respondent/complainant has failed to prove any job sheet to prove his visit to OP-1 for this before the Ld. District Forum. The respondent/complainant has stated on oath in affidavit that he visited the appellant/OP-1 but they did not redress his grievances. When the customer’s grievance was not entertained the question of issuing of job sheet has not arisen. As regards to the second contention of the appellant the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan” reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), does not apply in this case.

 12.           In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in the contention of appellant and find no illegality in the impugned order.

                The appeal stands dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member