DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.642 of 2016
Date of institution: 30.09.2016 Date of decision : 01.12.2021
Rajesh Soni son of Shri S.K. Soni resident of 301, Savitri Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Yu Televentures Limited through its Director Mr. Rahul Sharma, Block-A, Plot No.21/14, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, India 110028.
2. M/s. Amazon Seller Private Limited (ASSPL) Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore 560055 India through its Director and Authorised Signatory Mr. Rakesh Mohan Bakshi.
3. AKS Telecom, Quite Office No.1, First Floor, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.
……..Opposite Parties
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Shri Karun Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Inderjit Singh, counsel for OP No.2
OP No.1 and 3 ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC purchased one new mobile hand set make YU Yutopia YU5050 Grey in colour bearing IME/ESN No.911441600048346 from OP No.2 through online shopping on payment of Rs.24,999/- inclusive of all taxes vide invoice No.404-4179114-9325162 dated 17.12.2015. It is alleged that after 6 months of its purchase, the said mobile set started giving troubles and it turned out to be defective. The mobile hand set used to switch off repeatedly and used to hang up. It is alleged that the matter was brought to the notice of OP No.3 and the CC asked for replacement of the mobile handset. Since the mobile handset was under warranty, OP No.3 suggested the CC to take the mobile hand set to OP No.1 for repair. On 16.06.2016 the CC visited the authorized service centre to get the mobile hand set repaired. OP No.3 kept the hand set for repair for removing the defects and issued a job sheet bearing Bar Code No.23900513 dated 16.06.2016 and asked the CC to come after 15 days. On 30.06.2016 the CC visited OP No.3, but came to know that the mobile was not repaired. Thereafter the CC visited OP No.3 on 07.07.2016, 14.07.2016 and 23.07.2016 and remained in touch on telephone with OP No.3. On 30.07.2016 OP No.3 delivered unsealed new mobile hand set of same model by disclosing and assuring that the mobile hand set has been “replaced” with new one. It is alleged that the replaced mobile hand set was also found defective and the same defects as appeared in the earlier mobile, also appeared in the new mobile set. It is alleged that OP No.1 is a manufacturer and OP No.2 has sold the mobile set and OP No.3 is the service centre, who are jointly and severally responsible for causing mental harassment to the CC. Even registered notice was also sent to the OPs on 20.08.2016.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of the cost of mobile hand set to the tune of Rs.24,999/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of billing and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. OP No.1 and 3 have chosen to remain ex-parte.
3. In reply filed by OP No.2, number of preliminary objections have been raised on the ground that OP No.2 is providing platform for sale of various articles. It is averred that the CC has not bought the mobile set directly from the answering OP as the same has been bought by the CC from independent third party. As such the CC is not direct consumer of OP No.2. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint the CC tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. On the other hand counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel (Litigation Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the record.
6. Admittedly the CC had purchased one mobile hand set from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.24,999/- vide bill dated 17.12.2015 through OP No.2. It is admitted fact that the CC used the mobile set for six months after its purchase and then it developed defects as it used to switch off repeatedly and used to hang up. It is also proved on file that the CC handed over the mobile set to OP No.3 on 16.06.2016 for repair which is the authorized service centre of OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the CC himself has admitted in his complaint in Para No.6 that on 30.07.2016, OP No.3, who was not able to conduct proper repair of the mobile of the CC, replaced the same by giving a new mobile hand set of the same model to the CC. The CC has again termed the replaced mobile hand set to be having the same defect which the earlier mobile hand set was having. It is important to mention here that there is no evidence on the file submitted by the CC that even the second mobile hand set which was handed over to the CC by OP No.3 on 30.07.2016 was having any defect. Ex.C-2 dated 16.06.2016 is the job card issued by OP No.3 regarding repair of the earlier mobile hand set of the CC which was replaced on 30.07.2016 by OP No.3. Besides this, there is one legal notice and there is no other evidence submitted by the CC to prove that even the new mobile hand set which is still in the custody of the CC, was having the same defect which was in the earlier mobile hand set. During all these years, when the complaint was pending before this Commission, no effort was made by the CC to bring any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence in support of his allegations that even the new mobile hand set which was replaced with the earlier one, was also having the same defect and the same is not in use. In the absence of any evidence, we are not able to digest the story propounded by the CC in the complaint. The affidavit submitted by the CC is nothing but word to word repetition of the complaint.
7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
December 01, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I Agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
