BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 100 of 2016
Date of Institution : 18.4.2016
Date of Decision : 06.12.2016
Harsh Bansal, aged 20 years, son of Shri Ashwani Kumar Bansal, resident of C/o Somnath Harsh Kumar, Near Mani Ram Halwai, Bhadra Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Flipkart India Private Ltd., 42/1 and 43 Kacherakanahalli village Jagigahalli, Hobli, Hoskote TQ, Bangalore- 560 067, through its Manager/ authorized signatory.
2. W.S. Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Ozone Manay Tech Park No.5618, “B” Block, 9th Floor, Gurvekhavipulya Houser Road, Bangalore- 560 068, through its Manager.
3. Xiaomi India C/O Ikeva Business Center, 8th Floor, Umiya Business Bay, Tower-1, Cessna Business Park, Kadubeesanahalli, Marathahalli Sarjapur, Outer Ringer Road, Bangalore- 560 103, through its Manager.
4. HCL Services Ltd. MI Exclusive Centre), SCO 2471-72, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh- 160 022, through its Incharge/ Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 & 2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
Sh. Himanshu Solera, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a mobile worth Rs.6,999/- through online system vide invoice No.BLR-WFLD20150400475136 dated 15.4.2015 and op no.2 delivered the mobile bearing IMEI No.866392021338060 and 866392021338078 at the home of complainant with one year warranty. Op no.3 is the manufacturer of the mobile in question. The grievance of the complainant is that on 11.11.2015 i.e. within the warranty period, the above said mobile became dead stop, whereupon the complainant made a contact with customer care centre of op no.1 who told the complainant to take this mobile to its service centre i.e. Vignesh Services centre at Sector 32, Chandigarh. On visit to that service centre, extensive repairs in the said mobile were made with changing of its IC and mother board etc. and complainant was issued new IMEI No.867935028149689. As alleged, the mobile in question was still not working properly as detailed in para no.2 of the complaint. The complainant again contacted to the customer care centre of op no.3 who advised to visit to op no.4 at Chandigarh. Accordingly, complainant took the mobile on 9.1.2016 to op no.4 and op no.4 after some repairs returned the mobile after a period of one month but the defects in the mobile are still in the mobile. Upon repeated requests, no response is being given by the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, ops no.1, 2 and 4 appeared and contested the case by filing their written versions whereas op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP no.1 simply replied that complainant is not their consumer and complaint against no.1 is not maintainable. OP no.1 also denied remaining allegations of the complaint.
4. OP no.2 replied that they are engaged in selling of goods manufactured and produced by the manufacturer which has been impleaded as a necessary party in the present complaint and complaint against it is not maintainable. It is further replied that op no.2 provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customers and it is an admitted fact that complainant did not face any problem with the product within these 30 days.
5. OP no.4 simply replied that it gave its best efforts to entertain and resolve issues of complainant with positive result and complaint against it is false.
6. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of service job sheet Ex.C3. Whereas, op no.4 filed affidavit Ex.R1, copy of power of attorney Ex.R2, copy of resolution Ex.R3. Ld. counsel for ops No.1 tendered affidavits Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and copy of document Ex.R3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. From the written versions of the opposite parties No.1,2 and 4 and evidence on the record from both the sides, the sale and purchase of the mobile is admitted. Further warranty of one year is also admitted. The defects pointed out by the complainant have also been duly proved on record. The manufacturing company i.e. op no.3 chose to run away from its liability of warranty given at the time of sale of the mobile in question, otherwise there is no reason for not appearing and not filing the written version by op no.3 after due services of notice issued by this Forum. In our view, all the opposite parties have been indulged in manufacturing, selling and servicing the product in order to gain profits at their levels and no one is working for each other without any consideration. They all are bound to provide the proper services to their customers as agreed by them at the time of sale and delivery of the products. In our view, the complainant successfully proved his case and he is entitled for the reliefs keeping in view the fact that complainant visited at Chandigarh twice in order to get remove the defects in the mobile set. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of mobile in question as despite extensive repairs the defects in the mobile remained as it is. However, learned counsel for ops has contended that complainant has used the mobile in question for six months and therefore, he is not entitled to full price of the mobile in question and has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in case titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The mobile Store & anr. FA No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.5.2014.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the above said authority of Hon’ble State Commission, we allow the present complaint and direct all the ops jointly and severally to pay the cost of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.6,999/- after deducting 30% depreciation value of the mobile set alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 18.4.2016 till its realization. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. This order should be supplied by the ops within a period of one month after receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:07.12.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
