Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/550

VIKAS JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HCL - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:14.08.2015

Complaint Case. No.550/15                                           Date of order:20.07.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Vikas JainS/o Sh.Satish Kumar Jain R/o 110, Arihant Nagar, Punjabi Bagh-West  New Delhi-110026.                    Complainant

 

VERSUS

1.        HCL Touch Service Centre Manager(Mohit) G-5(III) A, Shop No.5/126 & 5/127 JanakPuriDistt.  Centre,JanakpuriNew Delhi110058

                                                Opposite party no.1

2.        XiaomiIndiaC/o Ikeva Business  Park Kadubee, Sonahalli,MarathalliSarjapur, Outer Ring road Banglore-560103.

                                                                                    Opposite party no.2

3.        FlipkartIndia Pvt. Ltd.VaishnaviSummit No. 6/B 7^th Main,  80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block , Koramangla, Banglore-560034.

Opposite party no.3

4.        WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd., 42/1  & 43  Kacherakanahalli Village, JadigenahalliHobli, HoskoteTaluk,  Benglore

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are  that Sh.VikasJain hereinthe complainantpurchased  Redmi 1s

(Xiaomi ) mobile handset  on 21.10.2014 through  Flipkart India Ltd. opposite party no.3 from WS Retail Service Pvt. Ltd.opposite party no. 4 manufactured by XiaomiIndia  opposite party no. 2  for sum of Rs. 5999/-.  The mobile handset  was given to the  service center   of the  opposite party no. 2 for repairs  several times videseparate job sheets including job sheet nos. JS 15062700403 dated 27.06.2015,  JS15070300154 dated 03.07.2015, JS 15070400269 dated 17.07.2015 and JS 1507200398 dated 20.07.2015. But the opposite parties failed to repair and return the mobile handset.  Hence present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 5999/- cost ofthe mobile handset and pay compensation of Rs. 95000/-  on  account of mental , physical and financial harassment on the part of  the opposite parties.

After notice the opposite parties  no.1 , 3 and 4  appeared and filed separate replies while raising similar preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction,  cause of action, concealment of true and  material facts and the complaint is false and frivolous .  The opposite  party no. 3 further asserted  that there is no  contract of service  between the complainant  and the opposite party no. 3 .   The opposite party no. 3 delivered the mobile handset   of opposite party  no. 2.   There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 3.  However, on merits the opposite party no. 3 denied all the allegations of the complainantand prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The opposite parties no. 1 and 4 on merits assertedthat the  complainantpurchased  the mobile handset.  The same was delivered  on the service centerfor repairs.  The mobile wasrepaired but the complainant refused to accept the repaired handset.  There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties no. 1  and 4.  All other allegations of the complaint  arevehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite party no. 2 but despite service of the notice none appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2, therefore, opposite party no. 2 proceeded ex-parte  vide order dated 22.03.16.

When Sh. Vikas Jain complainant  was  asked  to lead evidence  by way of affidavit , he filed affidavit  narrating facts of the complaint.  He also relied  upon invoice no.#BLR_WFLD20141001731093 dated 22.10.2014 , complaint lodged with SHO police station Janakpuridated 10.08.2015,  job sheet no. JS 15072000398 dated 20.07.2015.

 When the opposite parties  were asked to lead evidence  by way of affidavit , HCL Touch service  center opposite party no. 1 filed affidavit   of Sh. Kush  Srivastava  Associate  Manger legal  narrating  facts of the  reply.  FlipkartIndia  Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no. 3 filed affidavit  of Sh. AmitPratap  Singh narrating  facts of the reply.  WS Retail  Service Pvt. Ltd. opposite party no. 4 filed  affidavit of Mrs Swati  Singh  AR   narrating the facts of the reply . 

The parties also submitted written arguments in supportof their respective  case.

We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for opposite partiesno. 1, 3 and 4and have gone through the file carefully and thoroughly.

From the complaint, replies of opposite parties no. 1, 3 and  4,  affidavits submitted by the parties  and documents relied upon by the complainant  it is common case of the parties  that the complainant  on 21.10.2014 purchased Redmi 1s  (Xiaomi ) mobile handset  for sum ofRs.  5999 fromoppositeparty no. 4 manufactured by opposite party no. 2 through opposite party no. 3.  The mobile handset developed fault within six months from  the purchase that is within warranty .  The mobile handset was deliveredto service center on  27.06.2015, 03.07.2015, 17.07.2015  and  20.07.2015 .  The service center and the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant.  They also failed to return  the mobile handset .

Hence the complainant succeeded to prove that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no. 1 being service provider, opposite party no. 4 seller and opposite party no. 2 manufacturer of the mobile handset.  The complainant is deprived of his right to use the mobile handset.  He has alsosuffered  loss of the mobile handset.He suffered mentally, physically and financially, therefore, the opposite parties  no. 1, 2 and 4 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

Therefore, we direct the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 to refundRs.5999/- cost of mobile  handset and pay  a compensation of Rs. 2500/-onaccount of mental, physical  and financial harassment.

Order pronounced on : 20.07.2017

 

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT