Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/118/2022

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart. com WS Retail Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.118 of 2022.

Date of Instt.:12.05.2022.

Date of Decision: 04.09.2023.

Pawan Kumar son of Devi Lal resident of village Bodiwali Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

 

1.Flipkart.com WS Retail Pvt. Ltd. Nimbakaipura Road, Budegere Cross, Virgonagar, Banglore, 560049.

2.MI Mobile Care Centre (Authorized Service Centre of MI Mobile) Shop No.31, Palika Bazaar, Fatehabad.

3.Pctronics Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (POCO) shop No.F/Wz-261, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Metro Piller No.669, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.

 

          ...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OP No.1 was given up Vide order dated 23.06.2022.

                   Ops No.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 23.06.2022.      

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

MRS.HARISHA MEHTA,MEMBER

                      The complainant in his compliant has averred that on 21.06.2021 he purchased a mobile MI POCO- X-3 for a consideration of Rs.22,000/- by placing an online order through opposite party No.1; that the mobile in question was having one year warrantee; that the handset in question worked properly for around three months and thereafter it went out of order and become dead; that the complainant deposited his mobile with Op No.2 which demanded an amount of Rs.7054.04/- from the complainant for repairing the same by giving an assurance to take it back on 12.05.2022; that the complainant requested the Ops to get the same repaired free of costs as it went out of order during warrantee period but to no avail and the Op No.2 further returned the handset  without getting it repaired. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant in his evidence has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4.

2.                Notices were sent to the Ops but during the proceedings of the case none had turned upon on behalf of the Ops No.2 & 3, therefore, both these Ops were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.06.22. However, the complainant gave up the Op No.1 being unnecessary on 23.06.2022.

3.                We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

4.                It is established on case file that complainant had purchased the mobile POCO X3 of MI company through OP No.1 vide invoice Annexure C3 which was having one year warranty as is mentioned in Annexure C4. The grievance of the complainant is that the phone went out of order and become dead during the warranty but instead of repairing the same free of costs, the Ops No.2 & 3 are demanding Rs.7054/- (Annexure C2) for repairing the same and they failed to redress his grievance. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. 

5.                 Since the pleadings and contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the Ops No.2  & 3 did not join the proceedings of the case and opted to remain exparte, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the present complaint deserves acceptance. Hence, the present complaint is allowed.

6.                Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to repair the handset of the complainant free of costs. The Ops No.2 & 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- in lump sum on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant. The liability qua making the awarded amount will be joint and several.  The order shall be complied within 45 days failing which the Ops would refund the cost of the mobile (Annexure C4) in question to the complainant.

7.                In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:                                                          

Dated: 04.09.2023

                                                                                                        

         

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President