Delhi

East Delhi

CC/633/2014

DINESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

F1 INFO SOLU. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.633 / 2014:
In the Matter of:

Sh. Dinesh Chhabra

B – 12, Parwana Apartments,

MayurVihar–1,

Delhi - 110 091

  Complainant

Vs

1. F 1 Info Solutions & Services

      M/s. Service City, 201, 2^nd Floor,

Sagar Plaza, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi - 110 092

 

2. Xolo Mobile Head Office

       A – 56, Sector – 64,

Noida – 201 301

Respondents

                                                                                                           Date of Admission - 04/08/2014

                                                                                                          Date of Order          - 31/10/2015

ORDER

 

 

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

            The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that on 11/02/2014 the complainant purchased a Xolo Mobile Phone handset Model No.Q1000 Opus from Spice Hot Spot MayurVihar – 1, Delhi – 110 091 vide Invoice No.101989894 for Rs. 9999/-.  It is alleged that within two & a half months of its purchase the said mobile handset started giving problem and on 09/05/2014 it was submitted to at the Xolo Service Centre for changing its motherboard and it was assured that it would be delivered back to him after 10 days. Repeated remindersabout the status of his handset and Legal Notice dated 03/06/2014were of no consequence.  In reply to two emails sent on 27/05/2014 & 03/06/2014 the Xolo Service Centre regretted for the inconvenience caused to him and informed the complainant that it had escalated his problem to their backend team on priority basis and they would revert back to him ASAP.  In response to a call from the Xolo Service Centre on 28/06/2014 when the complainant went to take the delivery of the said handset, he found that it was having some more problems and the same was resubmitted there to be delivered after 25 days but in vain.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.9,999/-, the cost of the handset, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment meted out by him and Rs.1,000/- as the cost of litigation.

 

Notices were served upon the respondents but none put up appearance from the side of the respondents and case proceeded exparte against them.

 

            Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case has not been controverted by the respondents.

           

Heard the complainant and perused the record.

           

On perusal of the record, the fact of purchase of Xolo Mobile Phone handset Model No.Q1000 Opus from M/s. Spice Hot Spot MayurVihar – 1, Delhi – 110 091, by the complainant with IMEI No.911351000887641 for Rs.9,522.86 plus VAT Rs. 476.14 vide Retail Invoice Serial No.101999731 on 11/02/2014 is evident from the copy of the said retail invoice annexed by the complainant alongwith the present complaint.  From the Jobsheet dated 09/05/2014 it is apparent that the handset in question was suffering from defects viz., WiFi not connected, hanging and network problems. Further, a note dated 28/06/2014 appended by one Ms. Nutan on behalf of Respondent No.I on the reverse of the said jobsheet dated 09/05/2014 shows that beside the said problems the   handset in question was also suffering from some other defects namely, keys not working and phone counter fail.  In the emails dated 29/05/2014 & 05/06/2014 the Xolo Care while acknowledging the inconvenience caused to him, has intimated tothe complainant that his complaint has been escalated to their backend team on priority basis and they would get back to him as soon as possible.But the Service note dated 28/06/2014 appended on the back of the jobsheet dated 09/05/2014 shows that the respondents had not taken any steps to redress his grievance.  As a result the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum for seeking redressal of his grievance.  The fact that the respondents have chosen not to put up appearance and file their version leaves no room for doubt that they were aware of the fact that the handset in question was suffering for defects which were beyond repairs.

In the case in hand the allegations made in the complaint have been reaffirmed on oath by the complainant and the same have not been controverted by the respondents.   It is a settled position of law that uncontroverted evidence cannot be disbelieved and there is no reason for us to disbelieve the uncontroverted averments made by the complainant.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration holding the respondents guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant we direct the respondents to pay, jointly or severally, Rs.9,523/-, the cost of the handset  to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this judgment.  The VAT of Rs. 476.14 cannot be refunded as the same is deposited in the Govt.Treasury.  We, further, award penalty/compensation of Rs.2,000/- on account of harassment meted out to the complainant and it shall include the cost of this litigation.   The complainant shall handover the original jobsheet against which he had last submitted the handset at the Service Centre alongwith the mobile phone accessories to the respondents on receipt of the said amount.   If this amount is not paid within 45 days, the complainant shall be entitled to interest over this amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of judgment till it is finally paid to the complainant.

 

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                              (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                                                                                           President