Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/566/2015

Desh Raj Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

07 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	566/2015
Date of Institution	:	06.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.12.2015

 

                                                

                                                         

Desh Raj Dhiman s/o Sh.Raghu Nath r/o H.No.343, Krishna Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Punjab).

                             ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Bharti Airtel Services Ltd., through  its Director SCO No.407-408, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

2.      Vignesh Services through its Proprietor/Partner SCO No.32, Sector 31-D, First Floor, Chandigarh.

3.      Beetel Teletech Ltd., through its Director, Plot No.16, First Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana India (Importer of Xiaomi Communication Co. Ltd.).  

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

                   OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased  a Xiaomi Mi  4i-MZB4300IN  (Black) mobile handset from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 04.08.2015 for Rs.12,999/- (Annexure C-1).  Soon after its purchase, the mobile handset started giving problems i.e. audio and video recording, switch off abruptly during call, hanging, clarity in voice of incoming calls was not clear, signal of the set drops frequently even during the normal period, touch screen not working etc. for which he approached OP No.1 who assured him that the matter would be taken up with OPs No.2 and 3 and the same would be replaced but nothing has been done.  The complainant also approached OP No.2 (authorized service center) for repairs but all the problems aforesaid have not been mentioned by it  but only one problem was recorded in the job sheet dated 19.08.2015 (Annexure C-2).  OP No.2 also assured him that the mobile handset after repairs would be returned after two days but the same has not been returned despite his repeated visits on the ground that the requisite parts are not available.  Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure C-3) upon the OPs with a request to refund the amount of the mobile phone in question with interest but to no effect.   Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Notice sent for the service of Opposite Party No.1 was received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on its behalf on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 16.11.2015, it was proceeded against exparte.  Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Parties No.2 and  3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.11.2015.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In his exparte evidence, the complainant has also placed on record the documents (Annexures C-1 to C-5) in support of the averments made in the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which he purchased the mobile in question from OP No.1 for Rs.12,999/-. Annexure C-2 is a copy of the job sheet dated 19.08.2015 wherein under the column of customer reported problem mentioned as “touch not working”.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the legal notice dated 16.09.2015 alongwith its postal receipts (Annexure C-4 & C-5) served upon the OPs requiring them to refund the price of the mobile phone in question. Besides this, he has also placed on record his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted.  The OPs have failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant within the warranty period despite his repeated requests and service of the legal notice which itself sufficient to conclude that they had sold a defective mobile handset to the complainant. The Opposite Parties despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
5.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.12,999/- i.e. the price of the product in question to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,500/-  as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.12.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER