BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.363 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 04.09.2018

      Date of Decision: 22.12.2020

Kunal Sharma Age 16 years (Minor) Through Father: Shakti Nandan S/o Parshotam Lal, VPO Jajja Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar Mob. No.8146433514

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Gagan Telecom, Near Main Bus Stand Road, Patti Bhalai, Bilga,       Distt. Jalandhar. (Through its Prop./Partner/Authorized         Representative)

2.       M. I. Service Center, Baba Than Singh Chowk, Ludhiana        (Through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative)

3.       XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. by Rising Star Mobile India      Pvt. Ltd. 380 Balerica Road, Sri City, Siddam Agra-haram   village, Varadaiahpalem Mandel, Chittoor District, Andhra           Pradesh-517541 (Through its Mng. Director/Authorized          Representative)

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Kuljit Singh             (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Sumit Verma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3

Order

Kuljit Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a mobile handset Make: “Redmi Note 5” bearing IMEI No.864450030615944 for Rs.13,000/- in the name of his minor son Kunal Sharma vide Invoice No.2018 dated 13.04.2018 from OP No.1. That one year warranty was given for the above said mobile handset. At the time of sale of above mentioned handset the OP No.1 told and assured the complainant that in case of any complaint or defect if arisen in the said mobile handset, the defect shall be removed immediately or the handset shall be replaced with new one if the customer is not satisfied with the repair done by OPs. Having faith and relied upon the version of OP No.1, the complainant purchased the said mobile handset. That after 15 days from the date of purchase (within warranty period), the Touch screen of above said mobile handset became out of order. All Apps disappeared from the screen and did not appear. That the complainant brought the above defect into notice of OP NO.1 and requested the OP No.1 to replace the handset being disappeared the Apps on display/screen. That the OP No.1 directed the complainant to approach their service center/OP No.2 for repair or replace the handset. That when the complainant approached the OP No.2, the OP No.2 demanded the original bill of the handset. The complainant handedover the original bill which the OP no.1 had given to complainant. On seeing the bill, the OP No.2 told the complainant that the bill issued by OP No.1 to complainant is not original bill and directed the complainant to contact OP No.1 for taking original Online bill. When the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and told them that the original bill is required by Service Centre/OP No.2 for repair/replacement the display of mobile handset, then the OP No.1 told the complainant that the said product was brought by him through Online, the OP No.1 further told the complainant that the original bill issued with Online misplaced somewhere and not traceable. That again the complainant went to OP No.2 and requested them to repair the handset as the same is within warranty period, but the OP No.2 told the complainant the name of customer indicated in the bill does not match as per their computer record and again directed the complainant to bring the original bill of Online from O PNo.1. The complainant again went to OP No.1 and requested the OP No.1 to give the original online bill of above said mobile handset, but the OP No.1 refused to give the online bill of above said mobile handset saying that the original online bill is lost and not traceable and further told the complainant that he has issued the bill of his own shop which is liable to be treated as original bill as the mobile handset sold by OP No.1 is of same company/OP No.3, so the OP No.2 should not refuse to repair/replace the display but the OP No.2 refused to accept the bill of said mobile handset issued by OP No.1 on one pretext or other. That intentionally and deliberately the OP No.2 refused to repair/replace the above said mobile handset whereas the OP No.2 was well known the fact that the said mobile handset sold to complainant is manufactured by their company/OP No.3. That despite several visits and so many requests made by complainant to OPs No.1 and 2, the OPs No.1 and 2 neither repaired the Touch Screen nor replaced the defective mobile handset. That the complainant made telephonic calls also to OP No.3, but they ignored and refused to attend the call of complainant, however a complaint was registered, but no action was taken for repair/replace the display and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the above said mobile handset with new one with fresh warranty and in the alternative to return its full price as per bill i.e. Rs.13,000/- and further to give the cost of litigation Rs.5000/- and give Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 & 2 did not come present and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed separate written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the outset, Xiomi Technology India Private Limited in the present case Respondent No.3/OP No.3 respectfully submits that the complaint filed by Mr. Kunal Sharma is false, frivolous, concocted and filed to unnecessarily harass the respondent No.3 and illegally extort money from the respondent No.3. It is further submitted by Respondent No.3 that according to the Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “consumer” means any person who:-

                             Buys and goods for a consideration which has been                paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or                      under any system of deferred payment and includes any                           user of such goods other than the person who buys such                      goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or              partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment,                when such use is made with the approval of such person,                             but does not include a person who obtains such goods for              resale or for any commercial purpose.”

                   On a plain and simple reading of the above definition, it is clear that the complainant in the present complaint is not a consumer since the complainant is not the legit user of the handset and the complainant has failed to furnish any document to support his claim that he is the owner of the product or is using it with proper authorization of its owner. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has allegedly purchased the product i.e. mobile, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Replication not filed.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced their respective documents.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant as well as case file very carefully.

6.                In this complaint, the complainant purchased a mobile handset bearing IMEI No.864450030615944 for Rs.13,000/- from OP No.1, Copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1. After 15 days from the date of purchase the touch screen of above said mobile became out of order. All apps disappeared from the screen and did not appear and complainant brought the above defect into the notice of the OP No.1 and requested the OP No.1 to replace the handset and OP No.1 directed the complainant to approach their service centre/OP No.2 for repair or replace the handset and when the complainant approached the OP No.2, the OP No.2 demanded the original bill of the handset. On the demand of original bill by the complainant to the OP No.1, then OP No.1 told the complainant that the original bill issued with online misplaced somewhere and not traceable.

7.                Now after considering the overall facts of the complaint, one thing is clear that the OP No.1 not issued the original bill to the complainant at the time of purchasing the above said mobile handset and secondly, the IMEI number mentioned on the bill Ex.C-1 is not matched with original bill, this fact has been came when the complainant visited OP No.2/Service Centre. At the time of purchasing, the OP No.1 gave simple bill, which was filled by OP No.1, it is not original bill and when the complainant demanded the original bill, then the OP No.1 told to the complainant that the original bill issued with online misplaced somewhere and not traceable. So, one thing is clear that the default on the part of the OP No.1 while issuing the bill and as such, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, we came to conclusion that the OP No.1 is directed to provide original bill swithin 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and then OP No.2/Service Centre repaired the handset of the complainant or in the alternative replace the mobile handset with new one of same model and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- for mental tension and harassment. The entire payment be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Kuljit Singh

22.12.2020                              Member                          President