BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

Complaint No.123/18.

Date of instt.:10.04.2018. 

                                                                   Date of Decision:13.03.2019.

Vikas Loona aged about 30 years son of Shri Ramesh residentof Ramesh Tea Stall, Rori Gate, Jagdev Singh Chowk, Sirsa.                                                                                                                                ……….Complainant.

                                                    Versus

1. E-Mobiles, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39 Soukya Road, Kacherakanehalli, Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore rural District Banglore-5600067 Karnatka.
2. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. 5^th Floor Block Delta, B-Block, Embassy, Tech Square, inside  Cessna Business Park, Marathahalli, outer Ring road, Kadubeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore.

          ……..Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.   

Before:      SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER

                MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………MEMBER

Present:          Shri Mukesh Kaliramna, Advocate for complainant.

                        OP No.1 exparte.

                        Shri A.S.Kalra, Advocate for OP No.2.                

ORDER

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986, with the averments that on 10.03.2017 he had placed an order No.408-9226151-5384333 with Op No.1 through Amazon.in i.e. online service and booked a Xiaomi Redmi 3S (Gold 16GB) mobile phone which was approved online. Thereafter, the product in question was delivered to complainant on the shipping address at Sirsa through courier and the deliveryman had charged a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant as price of the mobile including shipping charges. At the time of purchase the Op No.1 had given to the complainant on year guarantee. In the month of April, 2017 the battery of the mobile was damaged and the mobile got burnt. Immediately, after the incident, the complainant made a complaint to the Ops in this regard on 24.04.2017 and also submitted all the required details but no response was received by him from the Ops. He also sent the burnt mobile to the Ops through courier on 12.04.2017 duly received by Ops on 15.04.2017 and further made communications for redressing his grievance but in vain as the Ops have neither replaced the defective mobile with new one nor refund the cost thereof. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          OP No.1 did not appear before this Forum, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 15.11.2018. The Op No.2 though appeared but failed to file its reply, hence, the right to file the reply by Op No.2 was struck off on 20.02.2019.

3.                          The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.   

5.                 In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has further tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21. On the other hand, the Ops did not either file any written statement nor led any evidence and the defence of the Op No.2 was strucked down on  20.02.2019, as such, evidence led by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

6.                Undisputedly, it is proved on record that complainant had purchased a mobile on 10.03.2017 which was delivered on 11.03.2017 with a warrantee of one year but in the Month of April, 2017 the battery of the said mobile was damaged and the mobile was burnt. The complainant approached many times to the Ops either to replace the above said mobile with new one or to refund the amount of the mobile but they failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

7.                          Keeping in view the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to replace the mobile set of the complainant with same make and model without any costs. We further direct the Ops to further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The Ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum.                                President,

Dated:13.03.2019.                                District Consumer Disputes

                                                              Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                        Member                                                              

             DCDRF, Sirsa           DCDRF, Sirsa