BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 366 of 2022.                                                                      

                                                      Date of Institution :    27.05.2022.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.10.2022.

Rishi son of Shri Bajrang, resident of village Ottu, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Carbon Entertainment PVT Ltd., Plot No. 136 Udyog Vihar Phase 1, Sector 20 Gurugram, near Ram Chowk, Haryana, Gurugram- 122016.

2. Xtracover, Care Centre B21 First Floor, Sec 8 Noida, U.P. PIN Code – 201301.

                                                                          ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.     

          SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………… MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite parties no.1 and 2 already exparte.                                                                                               

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 23.03.2022 complainant had purchased one mobile of POCO F1 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs. 9699/- through Flipkart. That from the very beginning, the said mobile was having several defects and was not fit for sale to any customer as it was having problems of network, mike, sensor problem and problem of mother board due to which mobile was not working properly. That due to above said problems, the complainant deposited the mobile with op no.2 on 8.4.2022 within warranty period. That after 10 ten days mobile was received by him through courier and when he operated the mobile, the problem in the mobile was as it is rather it was having new defects. It is further averred that again on 24.04.2022 complainant sent the mobile for claiming warranty as there was problem of its senor, mike and mother board and after seven days it was received to him but problems were still existing. That thereafter on 17.05.2022 the complainant sent the mobile to op no.2 regarding above said problems and on 25.05.2022 mobile was received by him but problems were not removed from the mobile. That despite sending the mobile for three times for repair, the problems were not removed and despite his various emails sent to ops, they have failed to redress his grievance and have caused unnecessary harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.  

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to op no.1 received back with the report of refusal and thereafter none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte. Notice issued to op no.2 through registered cover was not received back and since none appeared on behalf of op no.2 therefore, after waiting for stipulated period, op no.2 was also proceeded against exparte.

3.       Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.

4.       We have heard complainant and have perused the case file.

5.       From the document i.e. delivery report of courier Ex.C1 and receipt Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.9699/- vide invoice dated 24.03.2022. From the emails produced on record by complainant as Ex.C5 to Ex.C7, it is evident that mobile was having various defects/ issue and was not working properly within warranty period and complainant reported the defects to ops through emails. It is also proved on record that despite repairs of the mobile in question for three times, it did not work properly rather was having same defects and also developed more defects even after repairs within warranty period. So, it is proved on record that mobile is having manufacturing defects and same cannot be repaired. The ops despite notice have failed to appear before this Commission to contest the present complaint and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The pleadings as well as evidence of complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, complainant is entitled to refund of the mobile in question from op no.1 as complainant has already suffered a lot of harassment as he had to send the mobile in question to op no.2 at Noida for three times for repair but mobile could not be repaired.

6.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the op no.1 to make refund of the amount of Rs.9699/- i.e. price of the mobile to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which op no.1 will be liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.9699/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint qua op no.2 which is mere service centre stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced :                            Member      Member                          President,

Dated: 11.10.2022.                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                             Redressal Commission, Sirsa.